JFBADELEV IS16

A HISTORY OF MODERN LIBERTY

A HISTORY OF MODERN LIBERTY.
Vol. I. Introduction (Origins— The Middle Ages).
Vol. II. The Age of the Reformation.
Vol. III. The Struggle with the Stuarts (1603-1647).
The Continuation of the Work will comprise tke following
Volumes : —
Vol. IV. The Struggle with the Stuarts (1647-1690).
Vol. V. The Revolutionary Movement in the i8th
Century (America and France).
Vol. VI. The French Revolution (1789-1804).
Vols. VII. ( The Revolutionary and Emancipation Move-
and VHI. \ ments in the 19TH Century.

Other Works by the same Author.
THE GROWTH AND DECLINE OF THE FRENCH
MONARCHY.
Svo, pp. xx. and 840. 21s. net. (Published April 1902.)
THE HISTORY OF EDWARD THE THIRD.
Svo, pp. xxx. and 626. 18s. (Published March 1900.)
THE UNION OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.
8vo, pp. 542. 10s. 6d. net. (Published 1896; Re-issue 1907.)
Etc. Etc.

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

A HISTORY

OF

MODERN LIBERTY.

JAMES MACKINNON.

VOL. III.
THE STRUGGLE WITH THE STUARTS.
1603-1647.

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.,
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON;
NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA.
1908.
All Rights Reserved.

Printed at The Darien Press, Edinburgh.

PREFACE TO VOLUMES III. AND IV.

THIS second instalment of my " History of Modern Liberty "
is concerned with the struggle with the Stuarts in England
and Scotland in the seventeenth century. It is the continua
tion of the attempt, exemplified in the two volumes already
published, to trace the historical development of liberty
throughout the modern age. In the first of these volumes I
strove to elucidate the origins and results of that movement in
behalf of political, municipal, and social emancipation in the
Middle Ages which forms an indispensable introduction to the
subject. In the second I dealt, more particularly, with the
movements in favour of intellectual and religious emancipation,
known as the Renascence and the Reformation, and, more
generally, with their actual or potential political and social
effects. In accordance with the method of historic sequence which
I have adopted, the transition from the Renascence and the
Reformation to the struggle with the Stuarts in the seventeenth
century forms the natural continuation of the subject. It was
in this struggle that the forces making for human emancipa
tion, already exemplified in the preceding centuries, especially
in the sixteenth, were most fully illustrated for the time being.
It was in England and Scotland, rather than in France, or
Germany, or Italy, not to mention Spain, that the impulse to
political, religious, and intellectual liberty, imparted by that
century, found its most powerful, if not its exclusive ex
pression. The age of the Renascence and the Reformation
had, indeed, achieved great things in behalf of political, and
especially of religious and intellectual liberty. Holland, for
instance, presented to the world the spectacle of a small, but

vi Preface.
indomitable people waging a heroic battle against the giant
tyranny of Philip of Spain. Scotland, too, attempted to do,
with transient success, against its Stuart queen what Holland
had triumphantly and finally achieved against its Habsburg-
Spanish ruler, though the reaction which set in under the son
of that Stuart queen rendered it necessary for the Scots to
resume, in the seventeenth century, the task imperfectly per
formed in the sixteenth. In France the Reformation produced
the gigantic conflict for religious and political emancipation
which raged for fully a quarter of a century, and evolved in, at
least, the Edict of Nantes, if not in the vindication of the demo
cratic aspirations more or less mixed up with it. In Germany
the activity of Luther and his coadjutors resulted in a com
promise, which, though . it did not inaugurate full religious
liberty in the States of the Holy Roman Empire, recognised
the rights of the Lutheran conscience in the Protestant States
and which the awful reaction of the Thirty Years' War proved
impotent to annul. In the northern lands — in Scandinavia
and Great Britain — the Protestant creed attained and pre
served supremacy, and thus at the end of the sixteenth
century the movement in favour of spiritual or political
emancipation had effected a more or less marked transforma
tion in northern, central, and western Europe, in accordance
with the nature of the conflict and the extent of the changes
wrought by it. Great indeed were the achievements of this
century of emancipation, whose dawn witnessed the maturity
of the Renascence, the beginnings of the Reformation. These
great achievements it was the purpose of the second volume
of this work to portray in a general survey of the emancipa
tion movement in many lands. But these great things were
only the beginnings of greater, and in England and Scotland
in the seventeenth century, more particularly, this movement
proceeded and culminated in those revolutions which, from
our point of view, overshadow all contemporary European
history. The grand fact that rivets the attention of the historian of
Modern Liberty in this seventeenth century is thus the
struggle between the Stuart kings and their English and
Scottish subjects. We may, for the present, without being
guilty of much essential omission, devote our attention almost

Preface. vii
exclusively to this struggle. During this century France was
subject, with only some spasmodic restiveness, to the rule of a
series of absolute potentates who successively, and in well-
defined stages, carried out the policy of the subordination of
all powers to that of. the crown and the practical centralisation
of government and legislation in the person of the monarch.
The same phenomenon is more or less apparent in the
German and Italian States and in Spain. It was only in
England and Scotland that the battle of political liberty,
which began with the Parliamentary opposition to James I.
and ended with the flight of James 1 1., was passionately fought
out to the bitter end.
And this struggle, as these two volumes will, I trust, make
clear, was not solely, though perhaps primarily, a struggle for
political liberty. Its history brings out, indeed, in concrete
form, the complex character of liberty as I have defined it in
the Preface to the previous two volumes. The resistance of
Parliament to the autocratic r6gime of James I. and Charles I.,
of the Parliamentary opposition to the military despotism of
Cromwell, of the nascent Whig party to the absolutist tactics
of Charles 1 1., of both Whigs and Tories to the irresponsible
government of James 1 1., of the Covenanters to the autocratic
methods of both Charles II. and James 1 1., forms the dramatic
exemplification of the striving for political liberty. But this
does not exhaust the factors embraced in that mighty
struggle. It includes, for instance, the noble plea of a Milton
for intellectual freedom, the contentions of a Roger Williams,
a Harrington, a Penn, a Locke, and others for toleration,
the striving of obscure sects, like the Diggers, for social as
well as religious and political emancipation. It gave scope,
in fact, to the aspirations after liberty in the wider sense, of
which the Renascence and the Reformation had sown the
germs. In this complex struggle these germs are seen to
bud and blossom into the definite forms of organised
movements, which impart a wondrous interest to it outside
the pjirely constitutional demands and debates in the Parlia
ments at Westminster and Edinburgh.
It is almost superfluous to emphasise its importance.
Great, in truth, is its importance, not only for the peoples of
England and Scotland, but for the European nations as well.

viii Preface.
It is to the seventeenth century that Great Britain owed that
political grandeur which differentiated it as a nation, for a
certain period, from the other great peoples of Europe. It
was this struggle that transformed it, during the eighteenth
and part of the nineteenth century, into a land of refuge for
the exiles of other nations, that made its constitution for
long the object of desire to the political thinkers and the
champions of political emancipation of these nations. And
this struggle it was that helped to foster in Britain itself
those larger aspirations which resulted in the widening of
political rights, the broadening of intellectual and religious
liberty, and contributed to engender that free self-conscious
ness, that spirit of daring enterprise which led to the expansion
of British power and the establishment of free commonwealths
beyond the British shores.
Our Continental neighbours will all the more readily par
don these remarks inasmuch as they are made in no narrow,
patriotic spirit. They might, in fact, be amply fortified by
the testimony of foreign publicists, especially of the eigh
teenth century. If Great Britain has, unfortunately, been at
times the object of the enmity of other nations, its free in
stitutions were for long the theme of their admiration, the
ideal of their emulation. These institutions' have, in truth,
been both an object-lesson and an inspiration, without which
these nations, at a certain stage of their political development,
as well as Great Britain itself, would have been greatly the
poorer. In a sense, therefore, this struggle was a struggle on
behalf of interests, not merely insular, but European. It was
fraught with momentous consequences for Europe as well as
Britain, and consequently it has attracted the attention of
many foreign as well as British historians. Need I do more
than mention the names of M. Guizot and Leopold von
Ranke, to whose works as well as, for instance, to those of our
own S. R. Gardiner, the elucidation of English and Scottish
history in the seventeenth century owes so much ?
Whilst thus restricting my view in these two volumes to
England and Scotland, I would not be thought to be oblivious
of the services rendered by other nations to this transcendent
cause. But so much at a time, and for the rest patience !
The influence of the Renascence and the Reformation were

Preface. ix
by no means quiescent in Holland, France, or Germany, for
instance, in this seventeenth century. Political and religious
liberty might be suppressed in France, arrested in Germany.
They were very much alive in glorious little Holland, and
in France and Germany the forces of intellectual progress
were by no means stifled. The services of these forces in the
intellectual emancipation of Europe will receive due elucida
tion and recognition when I come to deal with the French
Revolution and the political emancipation of modern Germany.
To one essential omission in this second instalment I must
plead guilty. I have not attempted to deal with the founda
tion of that great free nation across the Atlantic by the
Puritan exiles from Stuart despotism. The Puritan emigration
to North America is a fact of superlative importance in the
history of Modern Liberty. If I have omitted more particu
larly to follow the fortunes of the Pilgrim Fathers and their
children in the New England on the other side of the ocean,
it is by no means because of the lack of an adequate sense
of the importance of their history in connection with this
subject. It is merely a question of arrangement, and I have
preferred to reserve this history for the fifth volume on the
American Revolution, in which it may both more conveniently
and more naturally have its place.
As it is, I have had sufficient difficulty to compress the
drama, of which these two volumes treat, into the space
I had allotted to it. I have been compelled to fashion my
material in accordance with the demands of a plan, of which
these two volumes are only the partial realisation, and have
had recourse to such expedients as carving two chapters into
one, or omitting quotations from contemporary sources which
I would fain have inserted. I have, nevertheless, retained, if
in a curtailed form, as many of these quotations as possible on
the principle that they serve to bring the reader into closer
touch with the thoughts, the passions, the aspirations of the
period. At the same time, they tend to interest him in the
sources of the subject far more keenly than any array of
perfunctory references in the shape of footnotes. Each
chapter has but one footnote, and in these notes will be
found critical accounts of the authorities from whom I have
derived my knowledge.

x Preface.
The preceding volumes have earned their fair share alike
of criticism and appreciation. A work on a vast and complex
subject like this affords ample scope for the exercise of the
critical faculty. Method as well as contents may well arouse
divergence of opinion. There are more methods than one,
and the subject-matter lends itself to large debate. Con
sequently, criticism that is unwarped, well-informed, deliberate,
and therefore helpful, is welcome. Omniscience, infallibility
in the treatment of such a subject cannot be predicated of any
man, dead or living, not even of critics of the omniscient,
infallible species. For appreciation, whether from far or near,
whether over-indulgent or mingled with reserve, I am grateful,
since it has encouraged me to persevere with what is both a
vast and an exhausting undertaking. I have been especially
gratified by that form of it which has found expression in
various applications from both Germany and France for the
right to translate the first two volumes. In Mr A. H. Sturm,
Bonn, I have had the happiness of finding a capable and an
enthusiastic interpreter into German. His sympathy and
capacity are only equalled by those of M. G. Testaud, Pro
fessor of the History of Jurisprudence in the University of
Poitiers, who has undertaken to translate them into French.
The fourth volume, which is included in this Preface, is
already in MS. and will appear in print within a twelvemonth.
In conclusion, I take this opportunity of offering my hearty
acknowledgments to the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of
Scotland for a grant in aid of the publication of the first two
volumes. The kindness of the Trustees has been extended
to this second instalment, and for this additional mark of their
interest in the work I beg to tender them my sincere thanks.
The University,
St Andrews, "jth January 1908.

CONTENTS-VOL. III.

CHAPTER I.

The Political Significance and Effects of the English
Reformation.
PAGI
Submission of Parliament — Protests against Tyranny — The Appeal to
Liberty — Ponet's "Treatise of Politique Power" — The Early
Puritans — Hooker as Political Writer — Government by Consent —
The King and the Law — Elizabeth as Ruler — Necessity of the
Strong Ruler — Parliament Amenable to Control — Parliament no
Nullity — Claims of the Commons — Insist on Debating Important
Questions — The Parliament of 1601 — Onslaught on Monopolies —
Reaction against Tudor Autocracy — Sources of Chapter I. . 1-1

CHAPTER II.
James I. and the Question of Toleration.
Factors and Stages of the Struggle — James the First — James and the
Puritans — His Policy of Repression — Its Bearing and Results —
Tolerant Attitude towards Catholics — The Gunpowder Plot and its
Effects — Repressive Measures — Rigorous Legislation — Contrast with
that of Henry IV. — Sources of Chapter II. .... 19-29
CHAPTER III.
Outbreak of the Quarrel between King and Commons
(1604-1611).
Opening of James' First Parliament — The Commons Vindicate their
Rights — Their "Apology" — Disgust of James — An Interval of
Harmony — The Financial Factor in the Struggle — The Question of
Impositions — The Financial Position in 1610 — Salisbury's Policy as
Treasurer — Attitude of the Commons — The Commons and Dr

xii Contents. PAGES
Cowell — The Commons and the Right of Free Debate — Great
Debate on Impositions — Arguments For and Against — No Imposi
tions without Consent — James and the Commons' Petition —
Disagreement over the Great Contract — Further Conflict and
Dissolution — Sources of Chapter III. .... 30-47

CHAPTER IV.
Government by Prerogative and its Failure (1611-1621).
Change in the Attitude of the Commons since Elizabeth's Reign —
Impossibility of Ruling without Parliament — Favouritism and
Corruption — The Parliament of 1614 — The Appeal to an Original
Contract — Indignation of the Commons — Intensified Friction and
Dissolution — Futile Appeal to the Nation — Opposition of Chief
Justice Coke — Bacon and Coke — Coke as Protagonist of the Law —
Friction between King and Judges — James' Doctrine of Kingship —
Dismissal of Coke — The Duke of Buckingham — Corruption and
Misgovemment — A Questionable Foreign Policy — Antagonism of
the Nation — A Protestant Crisis — Sources of Chapter IV. . . 48-67
CHAPTER V.
Renewal of the Conflict in the Parliament of 1621.
James' Speech to Parliament — Popish Recusants and Free Speech —
Attack on Monopolists — Startling Revelations — Buckingham in
Danger — Expedient for Saving Buckingham — Punishment of the
Guilty — The Case against Bacon — He Waives his Defence — His '
Confession— Significance of his Trial — Co-operation of Lords and
Commons — The Commons and Foreign Policy — James Continues to
Negotiate — Failure of his Policy — The Commons Denounce his *
Policy — Their Petition Angers James — They Assert their Rights —
They Resist the Royal Tactics — Their Protestation — An Angry
Dissolution — Sources of Chapter V. . . . . . 68-89
CHAPTER VI.
Last Years of James' Reign — Its Significance.
Antagonism over Foreign Policy between King and People — Renewed
Appeal to Parliament — James' Concessions — Appreciation of the
Nation — Persecution of Catholics — Impeachment of Middlesex —
James' Last Speech — Gloomy Circumstances of his Death —
Character of James — Genesis of the Great Conflict — Development
of the Power of Parliament — A Barrier to Absolute Government —
Criticism of the Attitude of the Commons — Sources of Chapter VI. 90-104

Contents. xiii

CHAPTER VII.
Friction between Charles I. and His First Two
Parliaments (1625-1626).
PAGES
Personality of Charles I. — Collision with Parliament Inevitable — King
and Commons — Contention over Supply and Policy — Renewed
Contention at Oxford — Buckingham Explains — The Commons Still
Distrustful — Angry Outburst against Buckingham — The Grand
Question at Issue — The Cadiz Expeditions-Charles Summons a
New Parliament — Eliot Arraigns the Government — The Case for
Inquiry — Charles Resents their Inquisition — Eliot Continues the
Attack — Charles' Angry Intervention — The Commons Assert Right
of Control — They Impeach Buckingham — Eliot's Great Speech —
Its Weak Points — Arrest of Eliot — Anger of Commons — Charles
Dissolves Parliament — Sources of Chapter VII. . . . 105-128

CHAPTER VIIL
The Religious Question — The Petition of Right
(1627-1628).
Puritans and High Churchmen — Montague and Arminianism — Reaction
against Puritan Bigotry — High Church Political Theory — Divine
Right and Non-Resistance — Dictatorial Temper of Laud — Charles
as Religious Partisan — Charles' Embarrassments — Charles' Arbitrary
Expedients — Blundering and Failure — Charles Admonishes Parlia
ment — Commons Appeal to Law and Precedent — Vindication of
Liberty by Coke, Phelips, Wentworth, Eliot — Resolutions against
Arbitrary Expedients — Conferences with the Lords — Charles Vainly
Intervenes — Commons Refuse Lords' Resolutions — Bill to Enact
Liberty Statutes — Wentworth's Device in Support of It — Commons
Substitute Petition of Right — Refuse Modification of Lords — The
Lords Ultimately Agree — Charles' Evasive Reply — Eliot's Denuncia
tion — "The Grievance of Grievances" — -Charles Gives Way —
Significance of the Petition — Renewed Friction and Prorogation —
Sources of Chapter VHI. ..... 129-159

CHAPTER IX.
Breach with Parliament, and Government without
Parliament (1 629-1 640).
Wentworth goes over to the King— End of Buckingham— Illegal Taxation
—Anti-Puritan Measures—" The Root of all Rebellion "—The Com
mons Denounce Illegal Taxation and Arminianism — Dangerous

xiv Contents. PAGES
Assumption of the Commons — The Commons and the Customs
Officers — Charles' Obstructive Tactics — Eliot's Passionate Outburst
— Defiance and Dissolution — Prosecution of Eliot and Others —
Question of Liberty of Discussion — Eliot's Political Standpoint —
Eliot's Title to the Gratitude of Posterity — Charles Concludes Peace —
Alliance with Spain against the Dutch — Ship-Money and the Outcry
against it — The Question before the Judges — The Fleet Covers itself
with Ridicule — Hampden Appeals to Legal Right — Arguments For
and Against — The Crusade against Puritanism — Leighton's Plea
against Prelacy — Prynne as Puritan Moralist — Persecution of the
Puritans — Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury — Reform and Repres
sion — Puritan Denunciation of Prelates — Popular Sympathy with
the Persecuted — Widespread Opposition to Coercion — Was Laud a
Romanist? — Sources of Chapter IX. .... 160-194

CHAPTER X.
The Subversion of Presbytery and the Establishment
of Prelacy in Scotland (1600-1625).
Importance of Transition to Scotland — Scottish Pugnacity — Ecclesiastical
Factor in the Struggle — The "Second Book of Discipline" — Character
of Presbyterian System — Democratic Features — Moral Tyranny of
the Kirk — Its Services to Political Liberty — Political Tendency of
Presbytery — Efforts of James VI. to Subvert Presbytery — Procras
tinates Summoning Assembly — Prosecutes Individual Presbyters —
Their Defence and Punishment — Andrew Melville at Hampton Court
— Scotland's Debt to Melville — Assembly of Linlithgow — Bishops
as Perpetual Moderators — The Assembly of 1610 — Establishment of
Episcopacy— The Absolute Supremacy of the Crown — Its Danger
to the Rights of the Subject — Reform of Presbyterian Worship —
Protest, and Punishment of Protesters — James Rates the Ministers
— Objections and Remonstrances — Peremptoriness of James — The
Assembly of Perth— Articles Carried by Unfair Tactics— Opposition
in Parliament— Small Majority in Favour of Articles — Dissent and
Persecution — Resistance to Coercion — Sources of Chapter X. . 195-328

CHAPTER XI.
The Gathering of the Storm in Scotland
(1625-1635).
Charles and the Policy of Conformity — Intensified Alarm and Contention
— Restiveness of the Nobility — The Act of Revocation— Determined
Opposition of the Nobility— A Compromise— Charles' Visit to Edin
burgh—Charles' Tactless Zeal— The Scottish Parliament— Charles'

Contents. xv
PAGES
Insidious and Partisan Tactics — Intensify National Antagonism —
Protests of Opposition — Indignation of Charles — Vents his Resent
ment on Balmerino — Attitude of People — Sources of Chapter XI. . 229-244

CHAPTER XII.
The National Covenant and the Abolition of
Episcopacy (1635-1639).
The Service Book — Laud's Meddlesomeness — The Riot in St Giles' —
General Antagonism — Petitions for Withdrawal — Specimen Argu
ments — Mob Demonstrations — Antagonism to the Bishops —
Organisation of the Opposition — Profess Loyalty and Maintain their
Ground — Charles Declares Responsibility for Service Book — Protes
tations against Proclamation — The National Covenant — Its Main
Stipulations — The Signing of the Covenant — Impressive Scene —
Strength of the Movement — Futile Negotiations — Hamilton's Im
potence — Renewed Protestations — Charles Ultimately Gives Way —
The Assembly at Glasgow— Its Representative Character — Struggle
between Commissioner and Assembly — Shall the Assembly Judge
the Bishops? — The Moderator and the Civil Power — The Great
Question at Issue — Argyll Intervenes — Hamilton Withdraws — The
Rupture Inevitable — Episcopacy an Impossibility — An Ecclesiastical
Revolution — Sources of Chapter XII. .... 245-278

CHAPTER XIII.
War between Charles and the Scots (1 639-1 640).
Charles' Plan of Campaign — Energetic Measures of the Covenanters —
The Covenanters on Duns Law — A Futile Pacification — Friction
with the Scottish Parliament — Justification of the Tactics of the
Scots — The Short Parliament — Defiant Measures of the Scots —
Scottish Invasion of England — Charles Negotiates and Summons
Parliament — Significance of Scottish Attitude — Its Justification —
The Covenanters Represent a Great Cause — A Knock-Down Blow
to Absolutism— Sources of Chapter XIII. .... 279-294
CHAPTER XIV.
The Long Parliament — Attack on Abuses and
Impeachment of Strafford (1640-1641).
Meeting of the Long Parliament— The Parliament and the Scots— Pym
Arraigns the Government— Redress and Justice Demanded— The
Situation in England— The Puritan Outcry against Popery— The

xvi Contents. PAGES
Attack on Strafford — Strafford Accused and Arrested — Charges
against Laud and Others— Condemnation of Abuses— Revival of
Parliamentary Consciousness — Triennial Parliaments — Charles Out
of Touch with his Age — Question of Ecclesiastical Reform — Digby
and Moderate Reform — Fiennes Denounces Episcopacy — Heated
Debate over Question — Arraignment of Strafford — The Indictment —
Was Strafford Guilty of Treason ? — His Irish Administration — His
Conduct of English Affairs — The Question of an Irish Invasion —
Strafford on the Defensive — The Bill of Attainder — Wherein Straf
ford's Guilt Lay — Intrigues that Undid Him — Charles Sacrifices
Strafford — Strafford on the Scaffold — Reflections on his Doom-
Sources of Chapter XIV. ...... 295-325

CHAPTER XV.
The Grand Remonstrance and the Attempt on
the Five Members (1641-1642).
Further Parliamentary Measures — Dissension over Ecclesiastical Legis
lation — Charles has Recourse to the Scots — Charles and the Scottish
Parliament — Argyll's Supremacy — Argyll's Position — Parties and
Principles in the English Parliament — Justification of the Opposition
— Puritans Mistake a Party for the Nation — Impossibility of Policy
of Halt — What were the Facts ? — Distrust of Charles and its Justi
fication — Convictions of Pym and the Majority — Majority's Ulti
matum to Charles — Origin of the Grand Remonstrance — Contents
of Remonstrance — Its Historic Importance — Angry Debates in the
Commons — Arguments Pro and Contra — Violent Midnight Scene —
A Startling Departure — Charles Returns from Scotland — Fear of
Treachery — The News from Ireland Intensifies this Fear — The
Impressment and Militia Bills — Charles Vainly Intervenes — Charles'
Maladroit Tactics — The London Mob Demonstrates — The Houses
and the Bishops — Charges against the Five Members — Charles
Invades the Commons — Charles Baffled — Charles at the Guildhall
— " The Privileges of Parliament " — Charles Retires — The Commons
Return — Sources of Chapter XV. . . . . . 326-361

CHAPTER XVI.
The Supremacy of Parliament (January- August 1642).
Parliament Adopts Defensive Measures — The Militia Ordinance — Charles
Refuses to Entertain it — An Angry Interview — Parliament's Inter
pretations of the Law Authoritative — The Nineteen Propositions —
Declaration of the Supremacy of Parliament — The Sovereignty of
Parliament — Dubiety and Defection — The Climax at Last — Wherein
Charles Erred — Parliament too Uncompromising — Where the
Chief Responsibility Lay — Sources of Chapter XVI. . . 362-375

Contents. xvii
CHAPTER XVII.
Civil War — The First Two Campaigns (1642-1643).
PAGES
A War for Certain Ideas — Ideals on Both Sides — Mixed Motives — The
Anti-Puritan Factor— Preliminary Movements — Edgehill Battle —
Irreconcilable Contentions — A Futile Diplomatic Campaign — Pro
positions and Counter-Propositions — Charles and his Advisers — His
Ultimatum to Parliament — Renewed Fighting — The First Battle of
Newbury — Parliamentary Disasters — Danger of Parliamentary
Cause — Sources of Chapter XVII. ..... 376-391
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Parliament and the Scots — Solemn League
and Covenant (1643).
The Causes of the Parliament's Lack of Success — Lack of Organisation
and Co-operation — The Puritan Confidence in God — Remedial
Measures of Parliament — -Fiscal and other Expedients — Associations
and Standing Army — Parliament and the General Assembly — Charles
Competes for the Scottish Alliance — Fights a Losing Contest —
Scottish Attempt at Mediation — Charles has the Best of the Argu
ment — His Self-Condemnation — Convention of Scottish Estates —
Negotiations with Parliamentary Commission — The Scottish Ulti
matum — The Solemn League and Covenant — Acceptance by the
English Parliament — Death of Pym — His Character and Work — His
Self-Vindication — The Spirit of Persecution — The Covenant and
Political Liberty — A Religious and Intellectual Tyranny — Sources
of Chapter XVIII. ....... 392-416
CHAPTER XIX.
The Overthrow and Surrender of Charles (1644-1647).
Spirited Protest against Scottish Intervention— The Battle of Marston
Moor — Failure to Improve the Victory — The Second Battle of New
bury — Cromwell Arraigns Manchester — Threatened Friction in
Parliament — Self-Denying Ordinance and New Model — Parlia
mentary Peace Proposals — Dissension on the Religious Question —
On the Militia and Ireland — Parliamentary Vindictiveness and In
tolerance — Charles still Sanguine — The Battle of Naseby — Irrepar
able Disaster and Demoralisation — Montrose to the Rescue — His
Character and Political Activity — His Enthusiasm — On the War
path in Scotland — A Victorious Campaign — Defeat and Retribution
— A Critical Estimate — Friction Between Presbyterians and Inde-
b

xviii Contents. PAGES
pendents— The Tension Increases — The Scots Critical; the Parliament
Angry — Rival Overtures to Charles — What the Scots were Prepared
to do— Charles Surrenders to the Scots — "A Most Damnable
Untruth " — The Newcastle Propositions — Charles Persists in
Manipulating Parties — Will not Give Way on Religious Question —
Takes Refuge in Procrastination — The Scots Agree to Withdraw —
The Question of the King's Fate — The Royalist Outcry against the
Scots — Defence of their Action — Impossibility of any other Con
clusion — Sources of Chapter XIX. ..... 417-456

CHAPTER XX.
Toleration — Church versus Sect — Religious and
Intellectual Liberty (1643-1647).
The Presbyterian Party in England — Ecclesiastical Difference' of England
and Scotland — The Separatists — Views of John Robinson — The In
dependents — The Westminster Assembly — Dissension in the As
sembly — Demand for Liberty of Conscience — Parliament Decrees
Presbyterianism — The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Parliament — The
Ordinance against Blasphemy — The Fate of Laud — Views of Crom
well — The Toleration of Expediency — Variety of the Sects — The
Baptists as Champions of Toleration — Roger Williams — His Career
in New England — His Attack on Persecution — His Doctrine of
Toleration — The Toleration of Christ — Fuller as Advocate of Tolera
tion — Milton as Anti-Episcopal Pamphleteer — His Plea for
Intellectual Liberty — Protest against the Muzzling of Reason —
Denounces the Censorship — Revolts against Protestant Bigotry —
Advocates Progressive Inquiry — His Limitation of Liberty — Sources
of Chapter XX. ....... 457-487

INDEX ... . . . 489

A HISTORY OF
MODERN LIBERTY.

CHAPTER I.
The Political Significance and Effects of the
English Reformation.
IT is only. in the light of the seventeenth century that the
significance of the English Reformation comes fully into
view. The Reformation had enormously strengthened
the power of the crown. It had made Henry VI 1 1, to all
intents and purposes an absolute ruler, who ruled indeed
through his Parliament, but of whose drastic will Parliament
was the subservient instrument. The submission of Parlia
ment to the will of the monarch, for which the Wars of the
Roses had paved the way, and which the Anglican Reformation
seemed only to intensify, is the keynote of the constitutional
history of the Reformation period. Nevertheless the subser
vience could only be transient. It was impossible even for
a Henry VIIL entirely to repress the tradition of English
political liberty inherited from the fourteenth century. Equally
impossible to stifle the aspirations after its revival which the
Reformation tended to beget. The influence of this combined
force is traceable throughout the sixteenth century, until
towards the end of it its reactionary force becomes unmis
takable in the restiveness of the Commons under the
latter-day autocratic sway of Elizabeth.
Arid in the press as well as the Parliament its growing
strength is equally apparent. In England, as in. other lands,
VOL. III. A

2 Protests against Tyranny.
the persecutions of the Reformation period evoked a series of
passionate protests against the oppression of conscience by
the civil power in the interest of religion so called, or in
vindication of an autocratic authority. Some of these eman
ated from Roman Catholic scribes, who denounced the exercise
of the royal authority at the expense of the jurisdiction of the
pope. Of such sort is the philippic of Cardinal Pole against
the English Antichrist who had dared to dethrone the pope
and persecute those of his subjects who preferred adherence
to the pope to obedience to the king. Of this sort, too, are
the polemics of men like the Jesuit Parsons who, under the
pseudonym of Doleman, inveighed against the title of Eliza
beth and incited her subjects to rebellion in the name not
merely of the pope, but of the people. The Papist champions
adopted, in fact, a thorough-going democratic strain against a
sacrilegious king or a heretic queen in the interest of the pope
and the Church, though they might be ready enough to
defend the principle of indefeasible hereditary right in the
case of a fanatic Romanist like Queen Mary of England, or
an unfortunate one like Queen Mary of Scotland.
Not less strenuous, on the other hand, were the appeals, in
the name of Scripture, law, conscience, of Protestant writers
like Bishop Ponet against the tyranny of Papist zealots like
"the Bloody Mary." Unlike the Papist protagonists, the
early English Protestants of the type of a Tyndale and a
Barnes emphasised the duty of non-resistance to the royal
will and its absolute supremacy in the State as against the
pretensions of the pope. They recognised this supremacy
even when exercised in persecution against themselves, in
deference to the scriptural injunction to render subjection to
the king as to the minister of God. " I have been reputed,"
said Barnes at the stake at Smithfield, " to be a preacher of
sedition and disobedience to the king's majesty; but here I say
to you that you are all bound by the commandment of God
to obey your prince with all humility and with all your heart •
yea, not so much as in a look to show yourselves disobedient
to him, and that not only for fear of the sword, but also for
conscience sake before God." The fully-fledged doctrine of
divine right, as applied to the English monarch, is the product
of a later time, but the germ of it is already visible in this

The Appeal to Liberty. 3
tendency to emphasise the duty of submission on scriptural
grounds. Such professions of absolute submission on the part of the
early English Protestants may not, however, be taken as an
indication of the abject servility of the English people even
under the iron rule of a Henry VIIL Parliament might be
subservient and the Protestants, in the days of their weakness,
pathetically loyal even amid the flames of Smithfield. But
Parliament was not in this respect a true exponent of the
national feeling, as the rebellions of Henry's reign and those
of his two successors sufficiently prove. That liberty to which
the papal champions appealed, and whose true meaning they
were apt, in their ultramontane zeal, to pervert, was no new
fangled word in the ears of Englishmen, and liberty even in
the pope's name might well make the tyrant wince on his
throne. Henry might play the despot, but he felt often
enough that he was risking his own head in cutting off those
of others. He had a disaffected Church and a restive people
to deal with. He lived in constant fear of revolt, and could
not always afford to take his own way — was sometimes forced
to give in. " He was, in truth, a gambler," to quote a recent
critic, Mr Whitney, " who risked all and played a dangerous
game with outward calm. This point is of the utmost consti
tutional importance, and explains why opposition to the crown
under the Stuarts could so easily succeed."
In England, as on the Continent, the Protestants were
ere long, under the influence of systematic persecution, to
discard the doctrine of absolute submission and proclaim the
necessity and the right of resistance to power tyrannically
exercised. Under the inhuman rule of the priest-ridden Mary,
Protestant publicists like Ponet, ex-Bishop of Winchester,
Goodman, a former divinity lecturer at Oxford, and John
Knox, ex-chaplain of Edward VI. and the outspoken antago
nist of feminine rule especially under the auspices of the
fanatic Mary, championed the right of resistance to tyranny
in the most strenuous terms. For Ponet, for example,
the end of the State, whatever its form, is " the maintenance of
justice, the wealth and benefit of the whole multitude, and
not of the superiors and governors alone." In order to secure
the common good from the oppression of princes, the people

4 Ponet's " Treatise of Politique Power."
have established checks on rulers, such as the Parliament
of England, "wherein there met and assembled all sorts of
people, and nothing could be done without the knowledge
and consent of all." He denies point blank, therefore, that
kings may make or dispense with laws without the consent
of the people. Custom confers no right : it may not legiti
mate evil, and any practice detrimental to the good of the
commonwealth is untenable. The good of the common
wealth precludes the exercise of absolute power. By the
law of God, the law of nature, the law of the land, the law
of reason the prince is as much subject to the positive laws
of the country as any individual. A certain obedience is due
by the subject in every well-regulated commonwealth. To
allow the license claimed by the Anabaptists, for instance,
leads to anarchy. But obedience has its limits, and while
the civil power is ordained by God, its scope is limited.
It has no jurisdiction over the conscience. It cannot
compel the subject to dishonour God, or to do what is
manifestly to the hurt of his conscience. Allegiance to
God and country claim it, in such cases, over allegiance to
the prince. Oppression forfeits allegiance. If the prince
and his ministers fleece the people by unjust expedients — by
oppressive taxes and impositions, by debasing the coin, by
seizing their goods — and play the tyrant over both body and
soul, he may rightfully be deposed and put to death, as
Scripture, history, and the law of nature abundantly prove.
Papist writers were not the only advocates of tyrannicide.
Ponet is as explicit on this point as Mariana. "And seeing it
is before manifestly and sufficiently proved that kings and
princes have not an absolute power over their subjects, that
they are and ought to be subject to the law of God and the
wholesome, positive laws of their country, and that they may
not take and use their subjects' goods at their pleasure, the
reasons, arguments, and law that serve for the deposing and
displacing of an evil governor will do as much for the proof
that it is as lawful to kill a tyrant. As God hath ordained
magistrates to hear and determine private men's matters
and to punish their vices, so also will He that the magistrates
doings be called to account and reckoning."
Ponet's " Treatise of Politique Power " is a vigorous, if

The Early Puritans. 5
by no means a profound, defence of the rights of the subject
against a tyrannic ruler, and earned the honour of republi
cation nearly a hundred years later by the antagonists of
Charles I. Very noteworthy is the tendency to lay stress
on law and the commonweal in opposition to the straining
of prerogative to the detriment of the people. The sense of
legal right was still strong in the England of the Tudors, and
burst out under the pressure of the Marian persecution in an
appeal to the sacred rights and liberties of the subject, which
neither the servility of Parliament nor the prescription of
custom might invalidate. In this respect it may be taken as
typical of the political creed of those advanced Protestants
who developed into the Puritan party in the latter half of the
century. Under the regime of the Protestant Elizabeth the
opposition to an autocratic government was, indeed, actuated
by ecclesiastical rather than political motives. The early
Puritans were concerned with theological rather than with
political questions, and the difference between the sage rule
of an Elizabeth and the sanguinary misgovernment of a Mary
afforded far less scope for sweeping political denunciations of
this sort. At the same time the Puritans were staunch cham
pions of the legal rights of Englishmen as against the illegal
tactics of the High Commissioners. They challenged the
tyrannic exercise of the queen's ecclesiastical supremacy
by this irresponsible court, and pleaded the rights of con
science against the absolute will of the monarch in things
ecclesiastical. They braved coercive laws in defence or pro
pagation of their theological principles, and though they did
not question the exercise of the royal power in matters secular,
their opposition to ecclesiastical tyranny in the name of law
and conscience was fitted indirectly to rouse opposition to
autocratic government in things civil as well as ecclesiastical.
The political tendency of the Puritan opposition in the Church
is indeed as apparent, though not so active or effectual, in the
reign of an Elizabeth as in the reign of a James or a Charles.
The Puritan might eschew political intrigue, but the instinct
that taught Elizabeth to see in the opponents of the bishops
the enemies of her autocratic rule was not altogether a mis
taken one. It might not be a fair inference that, because these
stiffhecked sectaries refused to conform to her ecclesiastical

6 Hooker as Political Writer.
system, they were, as a matter of course, rebels. Nothing is
further from the truth in regard to the dissenters of her own
reign. But the tendency to question the aristocratic rule of
the bishops over the Church, the striving to substitute for it
the more democratic Presbyterian form of Church govern
ment, the resolution to suffer persecution rather than submit
to regal dictation in such matters might ultimately have im
portant political consequences, as the Stuarts were to learn.
The striving to limit the royal authority by the plea of law •
or conscience was not confined to the suffering Protestants of
the reign of Mary, or the recalcitrant Puritans of the reign of
Elizabeth. It appears in the works of writers of a very differ
ent caste from either the Protestant or the Papist champions
of the right of resistance. Publicists like Sir Thomas Smith,
one of Elizabeth's Secretaries of State, and a former Professor
of Law at Cambridge, and above all, like Hooker, the author
of the " Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity," and an opponent of
the Puritans, were equally explicit in maintaining the legal
rights of Englishmen on constitutional or rational grounds.
They did not write violent philippics, for Smith was too
learned a lawyer and too good a courtier, Hooker too pro
found a philosopher to storm at large in the fierce style of the
Papist or Protestant partisan. But their vindications of the
political rights of Englishmen were not the less forcible
because they were couched in moderate language, and that
of Hooker has the distinction of having become a classic in
English literature. Hooker, in truth, towers far above all the
political writers of his age in respect of grandeur of diction,
strength and calm of reasoning, and his work possesses the
additional merit of having exercised an enormous influence on
the political contention and speculation of the seventeenth
century, as the writings of Milton, Hobbes, Locke show.
Hooker not only revived the idea of the original rights of the
people in an age in which these rights had been obscured by
autocratic rule, but he did so in a strain fitted to appeal to
the reason rather than the passions of his countrymen. If he
is not original, he is persuasive, and in his calm and stately
diction the old arguments of a Bracton or a Fortescue acquired
a force that was destined in the long run to be fatal to the
pretensions of would-be kings by divine right.

Government by Consent. 7
His fundamental position is that government is derived
from the consent of the governed, and that law must be the
expression of the will of the people, not the arbitrary will of
the ruler. The contract from which he deduces these funda
mental principles, and which he apparently derived from
Hubert Languet's " Vindication Against Tyrants," is a con
tract not between ruler and people, as in the conception of
earlier writers, but between the individuals who desire to sub
ject themselves to some form of government in order to escape
from the anarchy of the primitive state. The assumption of
this contract might not be an adequate historic explanation of
the origin of government, but it provided a good working
theory of the supremacy of the law and the limitation of
obedience to arbitrary rulers and was destined to fulfil a
mighty mission in English and Scottish history in the seven
teenth century.
For Hooker the form of this government is immaterial.
The essential point is that it arose from the agreement of the
governed — " from deliberate advice, constitution and composi
tion between men, judging it convenient and behoveful."
There is no specifically divine form. " Nature tieth not to
any one, but leaveth the choice as a thing arbitrary." Experi
ence, however, speedily taught men the danger of leaving the
government to the wisdom and discretion of the ruler, and
showed them the necessity of ruling in accordance with laws.
" They saw that to live by one maris will became the cause
of all men's misery." . The power of making laws thus belongs
to the people, and no prince can exercise this power without
the express commission of God or the consent of those on
whom the laws are binding. " For any prince or potentate of
what kind soever upon earth to exercise the same of himself
... is no better than mere tyranny." "Laws they are not,
therefore, which public approbation hath not made so. But
approbation not only they give who personally declare their
assent by voice, sign, or act, but who when others do it in
their name by right, originally at least, derived from them."
Thus what a representative assembly does is the act of the
nation. All such acts, though done centuries before, are bind
ing on the nation. " Corporations are immortal ; we were then
alive in our predecessors, and they in their successors do live

8 The King and the Law.
still. Laws, therefore human, of what kind soever, are avail
able by consent."
In a monarchy like that of England the king succeeds by
hereditary right, and the people may not ignore the right
which the original contract confers. As long as he observes
the conditions of the contract his right to rule is unquestion
able. Nevertheless, he is bound by the conditions of the
contract to confine himself within legal limits. Under the
king the law must rule, " In which respect I cannot but com
mend highly the wisdom by which the foundations of this
commonwealth have been laid, wherein, though no manner of
person or cause be unsubject to the king's power, yet so is the
power of the king over all and in all limited that unto all his
proceedings the law itself is a rule. The axioms of our regal
government are these, Lex facit regem ; rex nihil potest nisi
quod jure potest." The ecclesiastical prerogative, he holds, is
legal, because, like the civil power, it is derived from the people,
but his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, like his civil jurisdiction, is
strictly limited by law. " It hath been declared already in
general how the best established dominion is where the law
doth most 4 rule the king, and the true effect whereof particu
larly is found as well in ecclesiastical as in civil affairs. In
these the king, through his superior power, may do great
things and sundry himself, both appertaining unto peace and
war, both at home by commandment and by commerce with
states abroad, because so much the law doth permit. Some
things, on the other side, the king alone hath no power to do
without consent of the Lords and Commons assembled in
Parliament . . . which pristine laws, whether by custom or
otherwise established, without repugnancy unto the law of
God and nature, ought no less to be of force even in the
spiritual affairs of the Church."
The tendency to assert the rights of the people which was
voiced in the press by writers so different as Pole, Ponet, and
Hooker ultimately found expression in the Tudor Parliament
itself. In Elizabeth's reign the Commons not merely sup
ported the ecclesiastical demands of the Puritans against the
Government, they ventured, if only tentatively and somewhat
hesitatingly, to assert their independence of autocratic control
in legislation.

Elizabeth as Ruler. 9
Parliament was, indeed, as a rule, extremely deferential,
nervously sensitive to the royal resentment, obsequiously
apologetic, meekly submissive to rebuff. It was too much
under the spell of Elizabeth's imperious personality to adopt,
or at least persist in an aggressive, independent attitude. A
message from the angry queen, through the Speaker or the
Lord Keeper, usually killed an obnoxious Bill on the spot, and
drew forth the most abject apologies. A scolding in person,
as on the occasion of the prorogation of 1566, was an ordeal
that most members did not care to provoke a second time.
Elizabeth was, doubtless, a politic ruler. She knew well when
to give way, as on the question of subscription to the Articles
in 1571. She knew equally well when to stand firm, and she
manifested a truly masculine tenacity of purpose in asserting
and maintaining her ideas of government. Her ideal was a
popular autocracy. She would rule as well as reign, and her
striving to merit the loyalty of the nation by studying the
national interest gave her an extraordinary hold on the
affections of her subjects. She resolutely asserted her will in
the direction of affairs, and her devotion to the national, wel
fare amid circumstances of transcendent difficulty enabled
her to dominate, and even to domineer, where a ruler of less
wisdom, but of even greater self-assertion, like her successor,
only provoked dislike and disgust. She would brook no parlia
mentary interference with her government. She relied, like her
father, on a subservient Parliament in the work of legislation.
While she surrounded herself with trusty and sagacious
councillors who indubitably exercised great influence in the
direction of affairs, she had a will of her own with which these
councillors had to reckon. Her reign may be described as
" Government by Council," but the queen is more in evidence
than the Council, and though she had her favourites, she did
not allow them to dominate her. For the rest, queen and
Council carried on the Government undisturbed by parlia
mentary control. The principle of the responsibility of
ministers to Parliament lay deeply buried in the musty
records of long disused practice.
Even if Parliament had been disposed to renew the con
stitutional struggle of the fourteenth century in the latter half
of the sixteenth, the situation of the country was not such as

io Necessity of Strong Ruler.
to encourage the attempt. The strong ruler was still a neces
sity in the latter as in the earlier half of the century. The
country was still exposed to the danger of conspiracy and
insurrection, and the fact that religious rancour, rather than
feudal insubordination, steeled the antagonism of a fanatic
faction to the throne, did not tend to make the danger of civil
strife less threatening. The adherents of the pope and the
captive Queen of Scots might not be numerically formidable,
but they had all the forces of the counter- Reformation behind
them, and the counter- Reformation hoped to strike through
them at a vulnerable spot in the independence of England
and the sovereignty of its Protestant queen. Thus the danger
of invasion, which had been serious enough in the reigns of
the Tudor Henries, was a constant contingency in that of the
Tudor Elizabeth. For many years England lay under the
shadow of the ambition or the resentment of Philip 1 1. To
help the sovereign to keep the foreign enemy and his domestic
allies at arm's length, by enacting laws against dangerous
recusants and voting subsidies in aid of Philip's rebellious
subjects in the Netherlands, or against the inevitable day of
reckoning with Philip himself, was the main business of Par
liament. Parliament had only too good reason to stand by
the imperious queen, who was the guarantee of its existence
as well as the national independence and the Protestant
religion. In spite of high-handed treatment, of irate out
bursts of wounded vanity or imperious egotism, of strident
lectures, it submitted to the sovereign's autocratic sway with a
devotion which, if sometimes bordering on sycophancy, re
ceived touching expression on more than one critical occasion.
Peremptory assertions of the royal prerogative, which in
another fifty years were to call forth the bold denunciations of
an Eliot or a Pym, in the midst of an applauding assembly,
and stir the nation into organised resistance, were listened to,
as a rule, with meek humility, or only questioned by some
dour, ungallant Puritan, who paid for his unheard-of hardi
hood with inhibition or imprisonment.
Not only were the circumstances of the time unfavourable
to the assertion of parliamentary right ; Parliament itself was
too amenable to royal control to be an independent represen
tative assembly. In the House of Lords the bishops, who

Parliament Amenable to Control. n
constituted about one-third of the members, were the queen's
nominees. They were, in fact, as much royal officials as
ecclesiastical magnates, for they were appointed by the sove
reign, and could be deprived or suspended for disobedience,
as Archbishop Grindal discovered to his cost. They were,
therefore, the servile instruments of the royal will, the staunch
supporters of the royal policy. The greater number of their
secular fellow-members owed too much to the crown to ven
ture to risk the forfeiture of the royal favour by opposition.
In the House of Commons a considerable proportion of
members owed their seats to the policy of enfranchising small
boroughs in the royal interest. Elizabeth created as many as
sixty-two new borough constituencies, and both the constitu
encies and their representatives were naturally amenable to
royal manipulation. She could, moreover, keep a tight rein
on the House through the Speaker, who, though theoretically
elected by the Commons and presented for the royal accept
ance, was practically the queen's nominee. Parliament met,
too, only at considerable intervals, for Elizabeth had no
particular liking for parliamentary assemblies, and summoned
them as seldom as possible. Throughout the forty-five years
of her reign she called ten Parliaments, which sat during an
aggregate of thirteen sessions, an average of about once in
every three and a half years. They were thus deprived of the
opportunity of gaining large experience of affairs. They were
besides lacking in organisation, and this lack of experience
and organisation enabled the queen and her ministers to
manipulate business very much as they pleased. The ministers
were fixtures as long as they retained the royal favour. They
were not the leaders of a party majority, and they could
present their measures with all the prestige of the' queen's
expressed will and without fear of organised opposition. To
notify that the queen desired such and such a measure to pass
was usually to press an unanswerable argument. We know
what was the fate of a Bill to which she declared her dislike,
and with such a system of control and influence, Parliament
was practically the enacter of the measures of the queen and
her advisers. And though the law of proclamations had been
repealed at the accession of Edward VI., Elizabeth continued
to issue proclamations, in the form of ordinances, through the

12 Parliament no Nullity.
Privy Council or the Star Chamber. She even claimed and
exercised the right to dispense with the laws in certain cases,
as the Papists more particularly found to their dismay. She
was dependent on Parliament for a supplement to the ordinary
revenue, in the shape of subsidies and tenths and fifteenths,
but she drew from feudal dues (reliefs, wardship and marriage
dues, escheats), tonnage and poundage, which Parliament
granted for life, impositions on certain imported articles, and
the sale of monopolies, a large1 revenue which she frequently
augmented by loans. With a generous Parliament, which
showed no desire to starve the Government, to fall back on,
and a tendency to economy very natural in the granddaughter
of Henry VII., Elizabeth understood how to strengthen her
autocracy with the potent adjunct of a well-filled treasury.
And the prosperity of the country under her rule was a very
strong argument in defence of a prerogative that the impecu-
niosity of her successors would find it increasingly difficult to
maintain. Nevertheless Parliament, even under Elizabeth, was very
far from being a complete nullity. It was conscious of its
dignity, its rights, its privileges as the legislative partner of
the sovereign, and it occasionally took the opportunity of
expressing the fact. The stress of the time, which disposed
it to submit to the autocratic government of the strong ruler,
forced the strong ruler, in turn, to cultivate its goodwill, to
rely on its co-operation, to appeal to its public spirit, to
reckon with its historic claims. To speak of the Tudor
despotism is to ignore the fact that Parliament, though usu
ally subservient and nervously anxious not to offend the
ruler, was a real force in legislation, if not in government.
It is the Queen, Lords, and Commons that legislate, and
though the queen was disposed to exaggerate her own share
of supremacy in the State, that supremacy was limited by
Parliament in the case of all important legislative measures.
It is Parliament that declares her title and the penalties which
punish the refusal to recognise it. It is by the authority of
Parliament as well as the queen that laws are enacted or
repealed, though the queen does not hesitate to legislate, in
certain cases, on her own authority through the Privy Council.
The queen might emphasise her prerogative in very positive

Claims of the Commons. 13
terms, but she knew well enough that there was a limit be
yond which she could not safely go, and she was more than
once reminded of this limit. During the debate on the
inhibition of Mr Strickland for bringing in a Reformation Bill,
Mr Yelverton emphatically asserted the supremacy of the law
and the legislative right of Parliament against the crown.
" The precedent," he said, according to D'Ewes' Journal,
" was perilous, and though in this happy time of lenity, among
so good and honourable personages, under so gracious a
prince, nothing of extremity or injury was to be feared ; yet
the times might be altered, and what now is permitted here
after might be construed as a duty, and enforced even on the
ground of the present permission." He further said, " that
all matters, not treason, or too much to the derogation of the
imperial crown, were tolerable (admissible) there, where all
things came to be considered of, and where there was such
fullness of power, as even the right of the crown was to be
determined." If the queen was keenly touchy in regard to her preroga
tive, the Commons were equally touchy in regard to their
privileges. At the opening of each Parliament they claimed
freedom of speech, freedom from arrest, and freedom of access
for their Speaker, as their representative, to the royal pres
ence. They claimed, too, the right to examine the returns
made to election writs and to. decide all disputed elections.
Freedom of access Elizabeth willingly allowed, subject to her
convenience. Freedom from arrest by the law officers during
the session she was also ready to grant, provided the privilege
was not abused. The right of free speech Elizabeth only
admitted with qualifications which were at the same time
veiled threats. In 1563, for instance, "she granteth free
speech so that (if) it be reverently used." In 1571 she gave
an evasive answer and reminded them that " they should do
well to meddle with no matter of State but such as should be
propounded unto them." In 1 593, she was distinctly minatory
and repressive. " Priviledge of speach is granted, but you
must know what priviledge you have, not to speak every
one what he listeth, or what cometh into his brain to utter
that ;, but your priviledge is, I or no. Wherefore, Mr Speaker,
her majesty's pleasure is, that if you perceive any idle heads

14 Insist on Debating Important Questions.
which will not stick to hazard their own estates, which will
meddle with reforming the Church and transforming the
commonwealth, and do exhibite any Bills to such purpose,
that you receive them not, until they be viewed and considered
of those who it is fitter should consider of such things, and
can better judge of them." In 1597 she again warned " that
the said liberties and priviledges should be discreetly and
wisely used." On the occasion of her last Parliament in i6or,
in view apparently of the threatened onslaught on monopolies,
she rebuked the tendency to long-winded, contumacious
speeches with a bluntness which must have made the swelling
orators feel very uneasy.
It is evident from these recurring cautions and complaints
that the Commons were not always disposed to remain within
the narrow limits of debate which the queen sought to im
pose on them. Elizabeth's idea was that they should restrict
discussion to the measures which she and her ministers pro
pounded to them. Prerogative must be strictly respected.
Reform, if allowed at all, must come from the crown. Parlia
ment should aid the sovereign by passing Bills prescribed to
it ; it should not propose or discuss Bills obnoxious to the
ruler. It should vote subsidies, and for the rest be guided by
her supreme will. The Commons, on the other hand, claimed
the right to debate all important matters affecting the public
weal, to reform abuses detrimental to the public interest. In
the early part of the reign they took up the question of the
queen's marriage and the succession to the throne. Towards
its close they attacked the abuse of monopolies. In the
interval they championed again and again the Puritan demand
for a further reformation of the Church. On all these ques
tions Elizabeth denied their right to free debate, but though
the Commons as a body too often allowed themselves to be
snubbed into submission, there were not wanting individual
members, such as Peter Wentworth, who almost in every
session persistently opposed the cry of privilege to the cry of
prerogative, in the discussion of political as well as ecclesiastical
questions, and even braved imprisonment for their outspoken
ness. The difficulty of finding local candidates enabled a
considerable number of lawyers to enter the House as
members for small borough constituencies, and this lawyer

The Parliament of 1601. 15
member was to do yeoman service in the cause of constitu
tional liberty in the reigns of Elizabeth's successors. But
even in that of Elizabeth the lawyer member, who' knew his
constitutional history far better than the merchant or knight
of the shire, made his voice heard in defence of freedom of
discussion, and pitted against the high doctrine of the crown
the maxims of constitutional theory and practice.
The antagonism to the abuses which had accumulated
under Elizabeth's government, and against some of which
Bills were vainly passed by the Commons and sent to the
Lords in 1588-89, and a petition presented to the queen in
1597, was too strong in the Parliament of 1601 to be longer
frowned under restraint. The Commons made a resolute
attack on monopolies — so resolute that they at last forced
Elizabeth to capitulate. She had, throughout her reign,
conferred these privileges very liberally on her favourites
among the courtiers. It was an economic expedient for
pensioning her servants and flatterers, and it had become
the means of intolerable oppression. The courtiers sold or
leased their patents to individuals or companies, and these
took advantage of their privilege to raise the price of a large
number of articles. Some of these, such as salt and coal, were
indispensable articles of consumption, and the hatred of the
system was consequently both deep and widespread. Many
of the members had been sent expressly to Parliament by
their angry constituents to demand reform. Hence the Bill
brought in by Mr Hide on the 20th November 1601, which,
in spite of the strenuous opposition of ministers and interested
favourites, secured the warm support of a large majority of
the House. In vain did ministers and interested favourites
raise the cry of prerogative both during the debate for or
against committing it and in Committee. " The use hath
been ever," said Mr Francis Bacon, " to humble ourselves unto
her majesty, and by petition desire to have our grievances
remedied, especially when the remedy toucheth her so nigh
in point of prerogative. ... I say, and I say again, that
we ought not to deal, to judge, or meddle with her majesty's
prerogative." " I am servant unto the queen," cried Mr
Secretary Cecil, "and before I would speak or give consent
to a case that should debase her prerogative, or abridge it, I

16 Onslaught on Monopolies.
would cut my tongue out of my head. I am sure there were
lawmakers before there were laws. ... If you stand upon
law and dispute of prerogative, hark ye what Bracton saith,
' Praerogativam nostram nemo audeat disputare.' " These
appeals fell absolutely flat, as member after member rose,
amid an excitement which Secretary Cecil described "as more
fit for a grammar school than a Court of Parliament," to in
veigh against the obnoxious patents and the illegal and
oppressive practices of their holders. Most of the speakers
professed to respect the prerogative, but prerogative, they
insisted, was not to be used to the detriment of the common
weal. "The queen," cried Mr Hide, " cannot do evil by pre
rogative any more than God Himself can do so." " I cannot
utter with my tongue or conceive with my heart," said Mr
Francis Moore, "the great grievances that the town and
country for which I serve suffereth by some of these mono
polies. It bringeth the general profit into a private hand,
and the end of all is beggary and bondage to the subjects-
. . . And to what purpose is it to do anything by Act of
Parliament when the queen will undo the same by her
prerogative ? " " If we proceed by way of petition," argued
Mr Downland, " we can have no more gracious answer than
we had the last Parliament to our petition. But since that
Parliament we have no reformation. And the reason why, I
think, no reformation hath been had is because I never heard
the cry against monopolies greater and more vehement." " I
speak it, and I speak it boldly," said Sir Robert Wroth,
"these patentees are worse than ever they were." In proof
thereof he instanced a large number of new patents granted
since last Parliament. " Is not bread there ?'" asked Mr
Hackwell. " Bread ? " cried several members incredulously.
" No," said Mr Hackwell, " but if order be not taken for these,
bread will be there before next Parliament."
It soon became evident to both the queen and her advisers
that the mere scolding assertion of prerogative would not stay
the surging tide of revolt. She sent a gracious message
through the Speaker that measures should forthwith be taken
to remedy the abuses complained of. " It pleased her majesty
to say unto me, ' That as she had ever held our good most
dear, so the last day of her and our life should witness it ;

Reaction against Tudor Autocracy. 17
and that if the least of her subjects were grieved and herself
not touched, she appealed to the throne of Almighty God
how careful she hath been and will be to defend her people
from oppression, . . . that further order should be taken
presently, and not in future, and that some should be presently
repealed, some suspended, and none put in execution but such
as should first have a trial, according to the law, for the good
of the people. Against the abuses her wrath was so incensed
that she said that she neither could nor would suffer such to
escape with impunity.' " The aged and careworn queen felt
no longer equal to the self-assertion of more vigorous days.
At such an emergency, too, she felt how far she could go with
safety, and had the wisdom to bend to pressure, rather than
break under it. The Commons had gained a signal victory.
There were more such victories at the expense of prerogative
to come in the reign of her Stuart successors. The nation
had become restive under Tudor autocracy, and considering
what autocracy had meant under a Henry VIIL or a Mary,
its restiveness was natural. Throughout the greater part of
the Tudor period Parliament had been submissive and even
obsequious. At its close it had become alert and distrustful.
In the parliamentary debates of the earlier part of Elizabeth's
reign in particular the royal prerogative had been challenged
only by a few aggressive members like Peter Wentworth, who
had been taught the virtue of submission by arrest, imprison
ment, fine. In those of its closing years the majority had
come into line with the rebellious few, and forced the queen
to give way, despite the apostrophes of the defenders of pre
rogative. Its tone was decidedly reactionary. The general
interest is the supreme law, and the ruler must reckon with
this law as interpreted by the Commons, and, in such matters,
subordinate her will to that of the nation's representatives.
SOURCES. — Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man
(1528); Barnes, Supplication to the Most Gracious Prince
Henry VIIL, and, Men's Constitutions bind not the Con
science (1534); Sampson, Oratio (1534); Bishop Gardiner,
Oratio De Vera Obedientia (1535), in Steven's Life of
Bradford ; The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man
(prob. 1543); Pole, De Unitate Ecclesiastica ; Ponet, A
VOL. III. B

*8 Sources of Chapter I.
Short Treatise of Politique Power, and Of the True Obedience
which Subjects owe to Kings and other Civill Governours
(1556, reprinted 1642); Goodman, How Superior Powers
oght to be obeyd : Of their subjects and wherein they may
lawfully by God's Worde be disobeyd and resisted ; Wherein
also is declared the cause of all this present miserie in Eng
land, and the only way to remedy the same (Geneva, 1558);
Aylmer, An Harborowe for Faithful and Trewe Subjectis
against the late blowne Blaste concerning the Government of
Wemen (Strasborowe, 15 59); Starkey, A Dialogue between
Cardinal Pole and Thomas Lupret, Lecturer in Rhetoric at
Oxford, edited for Early English Text Society by Cowper
(probably written about 1538) ; A Discourse of the Common
Weal of this Realme of England (written probably by John
Hales in 1549, and edited by Miss Lamond, 1893); Foxe,
Acts and Monuments (ed. Seymour, 1838); Sir Thomas Smith,
De Republica Anglorum, or The Manner of Government of
the Realme of England (about 1581) ; Hooker, Of the Laws
of Ecclesiastical Polity, edited by Keble (1841); Strype,
Lives of Aylmer (ed. 1821) and Sir Thomas Smith (ed. 1820) ;
Walton, Life of Hooker, prefixed to Keble's edition of
Ecclesiastical Polity ; Articles in the National Dictionary of
Biography ; M'Crie's Life of Knox (18 14) which contains valu
able notices of the lives and writings of Goodman, Ponet,
Aylmer ; Figgis, The Theory of the Divine Right of Kings
(1896); Blakey, History of Political Literature, vol. ii. (1855,
very superficial) ; Journals of the House of Lords, vol. ii. ;
Journals of the House of Commons, vol. i. ; D'Ewes, Com-
pleat Journal ; Townshend, Account of the Proceedings of
the Four Last Parliaments of Queen Elizabeth (1680);
Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents ; Hallam,
Constitutional History, vol. i. ; Creighton, Queen Elizabeth
( 1 896), and The Age of Elizabeth ( 1 876).

CHAPTER II.
James I. and the Question of Toleration.
The reign of Elizabeth had witnessed the growth of a double
opposition to the exercise of the royal prerogative in Church
and State. The Puritan party in the Church had striven to
assert its Calvinistic tenets in spite of a repressive policy, and
though it had been silenced or driven into exile for the time
being, the death of the imperious queen was followed by its
rapid revival as a militant force. In the Commons, who
sympathised to a certain extent with the Puritan demands,
the spirit of resistance to autocratic rule had been growing and
had finally forced the queen, in the quarrel over an important
fiscal question, to sacrifice her will to the declared will of the
nation. The fact of this double opposition — the ecclesiastical as
represented by the Puritans, the political as represented by
the Commons — did not bode well for the harmony or the
success of the reign of her Stuart successor. The accession of
. Ja'mes proved in truth to be the exordium of a struggle for
political liberty, with its concomitants, intellectual and religious
liberty, which was only to find its final decision in the Re
volution of 1688-89. The history of England and Scotland
during this long period was shaped and coloured by the
striving of the Stuart kings to rule in virtue of divine right,
and by the striving of the Parliament to vindicate and even
enlarge the rights of the subject. The struggle which these
counter-strivings induced may be summarised, for the initial
enlightenment of the reader, in a series of well defined stages.
The first stage is exemplified by the growing friction between
king and Commons, which led James I. to dissolve Parliament
after Parliament in impotent anger, and evinced the impos
sibility of Government by mere prerogative in the failure of
his internal administration and his foreign policy. This

20 Stages of the Struggle.
friction proved to be but the skirmish before the pitched battle
of the reign of Charles, when the conflict entered on its second
stage and in which it increased in dimensions and intensity as
the spirit of resistance or attack became bolder. For fully a
decade, Charles, who recurred to his father's expedient of
governing without Parliament, appeared to have the best of
the strife. But the initial success of this expedient was
dashed by the outbreak of contention and ultimately of war
between Charles and his Scottish subjects. From Scotland
the revolt spread to England, and in consequence of Charles'
refusal to recognise the supremacy of Parliament and submit
to be a strictly limited monarch, the parliamentary revolt
eventuated in civil war, and the issue of this war brought the
king to the scaffold and made England and Scotland a
republic. The republic represents the third stage of the struggle.
But it was not fitted to be the final one. The republican
party crushed, indeed, the opposition of Scotland and Ireland,
but it outran the nation both in its political and ecclesiastical
principles. It showed, moreover, that if it could fight, it could
not rule, and the republic ere long developed into the farther
stage of the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. Against
this development the reaction in favour of the old constitution
became irresistible, and this reaction gave fashion to the fifth
stage of the struggle in the restoration of Charles II. as the
only alternative to the anarchy into which Oliver's death
plunged the nation. The restoration of Charles was, however,
conditioned by the constitutional principles which the Long
Parliament had ( vindicated in the first year of its history, and
for the greater part of his reign he had to reckon with this
fact. Towards its close, indeed, the aberration on the down
ward path of absolutism in his treatment of both Parliament
and nation, and the four years of his maladroit and autocratic
successor's reign, were sufficient to beget the counter-reaction,
in virtue of which the struggle entered on its final stage in the
Revolution of 1688-89.
The century which witnessed the evolution of this
tremendous struggle might be called a century of debate.
But the debate was not confined to the senate or the forum.
It extended to the battlefield, and whether carried on in the

James the First. 21
senate or the battlefield, it was wondrously dramatic, full of
episode, action in one of the greatest of causes. If loyalty to a
king by divine right has its champions, its heroes, its martyrs,
liberty transforms even lawabiding Englishmen and Scots
men into revolutionists, and marshals majorities in Parliament,
armies in the field under its sacred banner. It is an era of
theories, and theories are not usually dramatic or heroic. We
might at times imagine ourselves, in Parliament or camp, in
an assembly of lawyers, divines, philosophers. It is also an
era of passions ; the lawyer, divine, philosopher becomes the
tribune, and to this passionate tribune the theory becomes a
gospel, its realisation a mission. Liberty, compatible with
law, is the passion as well as the theory of the age, and as
the struggle progresses this passion embraces intellectual and
religious as well as political liberty.
James, it may be said, was almost predestined to precipitate
this long and dramatic struggle. To wield Elizabeth's sceptre
was a task to which even the great queen in her latter years
had no longer been equal. Parliament was, as we have seen,
becoming uncontrollable ; the Puritans had been defeated, not
conquered ; the signs of a reaction, on political and ecclesi
astical grounds, against the Tudor autocracy were unmistak
able. The situation would have tried the . resources of the
experienced statesman, and though James had been twenty
years an active king, he had to fit himself into a situation very
different in many respects from that which obtained north
of the border. He had been accustomed to deal with a servile
Parliament at Edinburgh or Linlithgow, and latterly he had
succeeded in forcing his will even on a recalcitrant Kirk. His
success in statecraft had confirmed him in his high notions of
divine right. His self-consciousness was not lessene'd by his
promotion to Elizabeth's place, and he was not the man to
hide it from his new subjects. To be ruled by one who had
never before set foot in England and spoke broad Scots was
bad enough ; to be ruled by a king who in season and out of
season murdered the English language to prove his superiority
to the English law and constitution was intolerable. In spite
of his ability and his shrewdness, it was greatly to be feared
that his obtrusive, undignified, pedantic, and irritating self-
assertion would not be taken submissively by men who had

22 James and the Puritans.
learned to thwart the Government even of imperious Elizabeth,
and were in no mood to mistake theories for rights. More
over, while an adept in bluster, he was not a strong ruler. As
his reign was to prove,he was easily captivated by the favourites
who took him on his weak side. With the exception of Cecil
and Bacon, his Government was to become the palladium of
weak or worthless men who knew how to humour him,
and for the rest only aided him to misgovern the country. If
the old courtiers scrambled for the new king's favour, the
Elizabethan courtier had ceased to represent the spirit of the
English people.
James was brought face to face with one of the chief
difficulties of his new role even before he reached London.
He was met on the way thither by a deputation of Puritans,
who presented a petition for the redress of their grievances.
Their alacrity in bringing their claims to his notice was
natural enough, but they ought to have known that he was
already prejudiced against them by his bitter controversy with
the Scottish Presbyterians. He had already given vent in
the "Basilikon Doron" to his spleen against Puritan democrats,
and the antagonist of Andrew Melville was the last man to
patronise the opponents of the official hierarchy in England.
Besides, he could not well inaugurate his reign by a sweeping
change of ecclesiastical policy. Even if he had been otherwise
minded, he was bound to accept the Episcopal system estab
lished by law, and, judging from his hostile attitude towards
Melville and his brethren in Scotland, he was not likely to
unfrock the bishop in favour of the presbyter in England. In
his eyes, as in Elizabeth's, the bishop was the staunchest prop
of the throne, the presbyter the pillar of democracy, a traitor
to kingly government. The Scottish king was, in fact, admir
ably fitted to carry on the Elizabethan ecclesiastical tradition.
The word Puritan was as great an offence to him as to
Elizabeth, and an official hierarchy which would uphold his
ecclesiastical ideas, and which he could nevertheless control
as he listed, was an institution after his own heart.
The presentation of the petition, which reiterated the old
Puritan objections to the .sign of the cross in baptism, the
wearing of the surplice, subscription to the undiluted Prayer
Book, incompetent ministers and laxity of doctrine, the pro-

His Policy of Repression. 23
cedure of the ecclesiastical courts, especially in the matter of
excommunication, was equivalent to probing an old sore.
Instantly the universities broke into vituperation, and warned
James to refrain from pandering to these factious and
traitorous preachers. He did not, however, allow such ful-
minations to close the question. He took the very sensible
step of hearing both parties and deciding for himself. Hence
the conference of Episcopal dignitaries and Puritan divines
which met at Hampton Court, on the 14th January 1604, to
debate their differences, with the erudite monarch for umpire.
James, indeed, played his part in the debate with tolerable
fairness and great credit to his theological skill, until an
unlucky reference by Reynolds to the word presbyter proved
too much for the royal equanimity. " A Scottish Presbytery,"
he burst out, " agreeth as well with a monarchy as God and
the devil. Then Jack and Tom, and Will and Dick shall
meet, and at their pleasure censure me and my Council and
all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and say, ' It
must be thus ' ; then Dick shall reply and say, ' Nay, marry,
but we will have it thus.' . . . But, Dr Reynolds, until
you find that I grow lazy, let that alone." The immediate
result of the attempt at conciliation was thus to deepen the
royal antipathy to the English Puritans. " If this be all that
they have to say," he concluded the second session of the
conference, " I shall make them conform themselves, or I will
harry them out of the land, or else do worse." The Puritans,
with the exception of some trifling concessions, were sent
away empty-handed, and James, who harboured the mistaken
notion that Puritanism was incompatible with loyalty, im
prisoned a number of the petitioners. They must conform to
the Prayer Book as well as the Calvinistic Lambeth Articles,
and acknowledge the royal supremacy over the Church, or
else submit to be " harried out of the land."
It was a momentous decision in English history ; contri
buted, in fact, to give to that history the trend of a whole
century. It involved strife, nay, revolution, in both Church
and State. This strife was almost inevitable, though there
certainly was room for concession and adjustment on both
sides. If the umpire had not turned partisan and trembled
for his throne at the mention of the word presbyter, if bishops

24 Its Bearing and Results.
like Bancroft had been less domineering and vituperative, if
men like Reynolds had been content to curb their Calvinistic
zeal, the seventeenth century of English history might, pro
bably would, not have been a century of revolution. The
factors of that revolution were as much ecclesiastical as poli
tical, and the abandonment of the intolerant and coercive
policy of the previous reign would have materially reduced
the danger of friction between people and monarch both in
the Church and the State. There were men like Francis
Bacon who saw the advisability, on utilitarian grounds, of
agreeing to differ in non-essentials, and being content to be
Christians in faith and practice. Bacon was a philosopher,
and the reasonings of the philosopher in the " Considerations
Touching the Better Pacification and Edification of the Church
of England " were thrown away on the High Church zealots
to whom order was of more account than the Sermon on the
Mount, and the narrow purists who had read to so little
account the thirteenth chapter of first Corinthians. In these
circumstances it is as useless for us to moralise on the con
junction " if," as it was for Bacon to expatiate on the doctrine
of unity in essentials and diversity in externals. Nay, it was,
after all, in one sense well that James took the attitude he
did. It made the ultimate vindication of religious and political
liberty certain.
In the course of the year Bancroft, Whitgift's successor as
Archbishop of Canterbury, had carried through Convocation a
Book of Canons which declared the royal supremacy over
the Church and the accordance of the Prayer Book and the
Thirty-nine Articles with the Word of God, and denounced
excommunication against those who ventured to demur. The
archbishop had the staunch support of the king and Council,
if not of all his Episcopal colleagues in this intolerant policy.
The results of the demand for subscription were the depriva
tion of about 300 ministers, who refused to comply, and the
virtual closing of the universities, whose members were re
quired to take an oath incompatible with Puritan, and especi
ally Presbyterian, views, to all Nonconformists. With the
advent of Bancroft who held the extreme doctrine of the
divine right of Episcopacy, and thus outdid Whitgift in his
intolerance of dissent, the current set strongly, in a section

Tolerant Attitude towards Catholics. 25
of the Church, towards that exaggerated conception of both
monarch and bishop which was to find mature expression in
Laud. In striking contrast to the vehement rancour of his atti
tude towards the Puritans, James at the outset of his reign
assumed a conciliatory tone towards the Catholics. He was
prepared to tolerate Catholics who, while loyal to their
religion, were also loyal to their king. If they refrained from
treasonable intrigues, he would not only wink at the laws
against recusants, but even promote them to offices of State.
He would, he assured Cecil, in prospect of his accession to
the English throne, be no persecutor for a difference of
religion, though he could not permit an active Catholic pro
paganda, and would banish intriguing priests and Jesuits.
Such assurances were no doubt actuated by policy as
well as by the spirit of moderation. It was James' business
as suitor for the English crown to conciliate all sections of
the English people, and his attitude towards the popish lords
in Scotland had shown that he was ready to strike the middle
way as between the Catholic and Protestant zealots of the
time. In his opening speech to his first Parliament he reit
erated his determination to discriminate between reasonable,
moderate Papists and the fanatics who placed their allegi
ance to the pope before their allegiance to the king. The
former he was ready to tolerate as mistaken fellow Christians,
and to mitigate the laws against their creed. Nay, he would
even go half-way towards a general reconciliation of Christen
dom. The latter he would vigorously repress as " perturbers
of the commonwealth." And while he might suffer honest
Catholics in the hope that they might come to see their errors,
there must be no proselytism. The increase of the adherents
of the pope could only tend to endanger the independence of
his crown.He proved the sincerity of his professions by making
Catholics like Lord Thomas and Lord Henry Howard mem
bers of the Council and raising them to the peerage. He
remitted the fines against recusants and assured the chief
Catholic laymen that the penal laws would not be enforced
against loyal subjects. He had, however, not been many
months on the throne before he discovered that the priests

26 The Gunpowder Plot.
would not be " quiet." Catholics like Watson and Markham
plotted to seize him, confine him in the Tower, convert him,
or depose him if he would not be converted. Even Protest
ants like Raleigh and Cobham were accused of sharing, from
personal motives, in these intrigues. Against such plotters
James let the law take its course, and even banished by
proclamation, of date 22nd February 1604, all Jesuits and
seminary priests. The Gunpowder Plot was the counter-
stroke of these priests, and the Gunpowder Plot sealed the
doom of the policy of benevolent compromise towards the more
moderate votaries of the old creed. The priests and their
agents, chief of whom were Catesby, Winter, Percy, Gerard,
and Fawkes, determined to rid themselves of their enemies
by blowing them up en masse at the meeting of Parliament
in 1605. Their deadly purpose was steeled by a stringent
Bill against both priests and recusants which both Houses
passed, and to which James gave his assent in the summer
of 1604. The policy of compromise had emboldened the
Catholics to profess their religion openly, and the Bill was
the outcome of the widespread alarm at the increase of their
numbers. It was so harshly applied by the judges on circuit
that several recusants were executed. At the same time the
fines under the old penal laws were more and more rigorously
exacted. James had, in fact, caught the alarm of the more
nervous Protestants in spite of his profession and promise of
toleration, and his tone changed from reasonableness to
threatening. He earnestly enjoined the Council to see that
the recusancy laws were strictly enforced, and the victims of
his Protestant zeal might be counted by the thousand. Their
sufferings lent zest to the subterranean labours of the zealots
who were toiling at the task of undermining the walls of the
Parliament House from the hired building which abutted it.
The thickness of the wall made the task an arduous and
lengthy one, but the discovery of an adjoining cellar, which
ran under the Parliament House, solved the problem. The
conspirators hired the cellar, placed in it twenty barrels of
gunpowder, covered them with wood and faggots, and dis
persed to organise the insurrection which the dastardly crime
was to inaugurate. Happily a hint from Tresham, one of the
conspirators, to Lord Mounteagle, his Catholic brother-in-law,

Repressive Measures. 27
not to attend the opening of the Parliament, led to its oppor
tune discovery.
Toleration of fanatics that could plan and put in execution
such a diabolic outrage was certainly premature. It need not
surprise us if not only the would-be perpetrators, but their
co-religionists suffered from such a revelation. The con
spirators were run to earth at Holbeach, in Staffordshire, and
either killed in the skirmish or executed after trial. Their
co-religionists had to submit to an aggravation of the re
cusancy laws, which compelled them not only to go to the
Protestant Church, but to take the sacrament once a year at
least, on pain of a heavy fine for refusal, and decreed a
reward out of the recusant's property to the informer. They
were further required to take a stringent oath of allegiance,
which bound them to disown the authority of the pope within
the realm, without equivocation or reservation whatsoever,
and more particularly the papal power to depose the lawful
monarch, or raise sedition against him, or absolve his subjects
from their obedience, to preserve their allegiance, disclose all
conspiracies, and condemn " the damnable doctrine " that
excommunicated princes may be murdered by their subjects.
Refusal to take the oath rendered the person so refusing
liable, in the case of men, to the penalty of praemunire ; in
the case of women, to imprisonment in the common gaol.
Against this oath no patriotic Catholic could take reasonable
objection in the circumstances. A dastardly plot had been
unearthed in the service of a Church of which the pope was
the head, and though the pope was no party to the fanatic
attempt, the papal assumption of the right of excommunica
tion and deposition might well, at such a crisis, appear as a
deadly menace to the safety of the State. In the prevailing
terror and indignation, however, James and his Council forgot
to discriminate, and by making it a crime punishable by heavy
fines to refuse to take the sacrament in a parish church,
outraged the consciences of honest Catholics who had no
sympathy with wholesale murder for religious ends. To
demand such a flagrant act of hypocrisy and sacrilege was
to ask honest and moderate Catholics not only to forswear
the authority of the pope, but to forswear their religion itself.
The reason alleged for this excess of coercion — the hypocrisy

28 Rigorous Legislation.
of those who conformed so far as to attend church in order to
escape the penalty for non-attendance — was really an argu
ment against the compulsion of such hollow conformity. It
was the law that made the hypocrite, and the Government,
apparently realising this, does not seem to have strictly en
forced it. Moreover, they were still liable to prosecution,
fine, imprisonment under the old recusant laws for refusing to
go to church, and in addition they were subject to a variety
of disabilities which deprived them of most of the rights of
citizenship. No convicted recusant could practise the law as
solicitor or advocate ; he could not hold the office of judge,
or indeed any public office ; he could not hold any military
appointment ; he could not be a doctor or apothecary under
penalty of ^ioo, half of which went to the informer. Their
marriages were not valid unless the ceremony was performed
in accordance with the rite of the English Church, and neither
husband nor wife, not so married, had any claim to each
other's property in case of death. They were bound to have
their children baptized by a Protestant minister on pain of
fine, the third part of which to go to the informer. From
these specimens of statutory proscriptions, which in two years
from James' accession swelled the statute book, we may realise
how completely the policy of toleration had failed. It is
nevertheless very questionable whether its failure was the
inevitable concomitant of the plot. Seven years before, the
Edict of Nantes had secured for the Huguenots the full recog
nition of citizenship in a Catholic country, despite the religious
antagonism which had drenched the soil of France with blood
for fully thirty years. Unfortunately, James I. was -no
Henry IV., and accordingly we have the unedifying spectacle
of Catholics in a Protestant country being victimised by an
intolerant king and Parliament for the murderous folly of a
few fanatics, whilst the Protestant victims of Catholic intoler
ance were being emancipated from similar iniquitous legislation
across the Channel. ' The scare of the plot is some excuse for
the access of severity which made James so sweepingly belie
his profession of toleration. He was prone to take fright —
has, in fact, been described as a coward — and his nervousness,
in leading him to mistake a few fanatic plotters for the English
Catholics, certainly ran away with his sense of justice and his

Contrast with that of Henry IV. 29
perspicacity. France had suffered unspeakable woe from the
conflict of religious antagonism and passion. Yet France
under Henry's wise auspices agreed to compromise in the
face of the bitterness of a generation of civil war. Surely
England might have followed its example in the face of even
a plot to blow up the Parliament House, which was the work
of a few religious anarchists, not of the mass of their co
religionists. The anarchists might have been proscribed, as
they deserved to be, without making their loyal co-religionists,
to whom transubstantiation and the worship of the Virgin
constituted the essence of religion, the victims of a barbarous
legislation. The threat of deposition, invasion, conquest, which
had made Catholic intrigues so real a danger in Elizabeth's
reign, was now happily quiescent. Philip was gone, and
Philip had left the Spanish monarchy a wreck. James could,
in fact, bring the struggle to a close in the conviction that he
had nothing to fear from the Spanish enemy. He could
reckon on the alliance of France and Holland, and in the face
of this triple alliance and the Spanish collapse, Papist invasion
and revolution were mere chimeras.
SOURCES. — Correspondence of King James with Sir Robert
Cecil, edited by Bruce for the Camden Society (1861) ; Bar
low, The Summe and Substance of the Conference (at Hampton
Court) (1604); Bacon, Considerations for the Better Pacifica
tion and Edification of the Church {apropos of the Hampton
Conference) (1603), in Spedding's Letters and Life of Bacon,
vol. iii. ; Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae, iv., for the
Canons of 1604 ; Statutes at Large, vol. iii. ; State Papers of
James' Reign (Domestic), 1603-10, edited by Mary A. E.
Green ; State Trials (Cobbett, vol. ii.) (1809) ; Jardine, Narra
tive of the Gunpowder Plot (1857) ; Lords' Journals, vol. ii. ;
Commons' Journals, vol. i. ; The Parliamentary or Constitu
tional History of England from the Earliest Times to the
Restoration of Charles IL, selected from the Journals of both
Houses, Records, MSS., &c, by several Hands (1751); Cob
bett, Parliamentary History, i. (1806); Gardiner, History of
England from the Accession of James I. to the Disgrace of
Chief Justice Coke (1863).

CHAPTER III.
Outbreak of the Quarrel between King and „
Commons (1604-1611).
JAMES opened his first Parliament at Westminster on the
19th March 1604 with a lengthy and wordy speech. Though
characteristically voluble and self-conscious, the royal orator
said nothing, with the exception of a hit at the Puritans, that
could rasp the feelings of his hearers. Some of his utterances
rose, in truth, to a high plane of statesmanship, and betokened
a man of large ideas in some points of national policy. He
was profuse in his thanks for the kindly welcome extended to
him, proclaimed himself a lover of peace and toleration
(except towards Puritan democrats and Papist plotters), em
phasised the significance and the reasonableness of the union
of the two kingdoms, exhorted his listeners to aim at making
good laws rather than many laws, and professed his dislike of
tyranny and his devotion to the interests of the common
wealth. The Speaker, Sir Edward Phelipps, was equally voluble
and still more bombastic in his reply on behalf of the Com
mons, though he managed to slip in among his metaphors
and hyperboles a plain statement of the legislative rights of
Parliament, "by whose power only new laws are to be
instituted, imperfect laws reformed, and inconvenient laws
abrogated." Unfortunately for James, these amicable preliminaries
did not inaugurate a harmonious session. The session was,
in- fact, a long wrangle over the demands of the king and
the proposals of the Commons. James imperiously interfered
in the contention between the Commons and the Court of
Chancery as to the right to decide disputed elections. His
interference only evoked the resolute assertion of their exclu-

The Commons Vindicate their Rights. 31
sive claim to judge election returns in the interest of the
independence of the House and the rights of the constituents,
and finally led to the recognition of this claim by the baffled
monarch. On the question of a closer union with Scotland,
they refused to recognise the title of King of Great Britain
which he was eager to assume, though they went the length
of nominating a Union Commission to treat with the Com
missioners of the Scottish Parliament. They further irritated
him by pressing for ecclesiastical reforms on Puritan lines, and
formulated a number of Bills, which were, however, rejected
by the Lords, in favour of some of these reforms. They
petitioned against such feudal abuses, as wardship, respite
of homage, tenure in capite, purveyance, which James was
loth to waive as a matter of prerogative and a source of
revenue. On the other hand, while they busied themselves with
reforms distasteful to the king, they showed no sign of
honouring the event of his accession by a substantial grant.
They passed a Tonnage and Poundage Act, granting the
king the usual duties on wines and on exported and im
ported goods, but they were in no hurry to grant a subsidy,
and James forestalled the menace of a disagreeable discus
sion by an injunction discharging them " from meddling any
further in that question." The situation became so strained
that the Commons determined to vindicate their attitude
and their legislative activity throughout these four months ,
of friction in an address or apology to the king. They
renewed their expression of loyalty to his majesty's person,
were anxious to clear themselves from the aspersions of those
who had misinformed him as to their proceedings and sought
to prejudice him against them. In what they had done they
had striven to perform their duty to themselves and their
constituents as well as the king, and they reminded him
that the privileges and liberties of Parliament were theirs
by " right and due inheritance," and " cannot be withheld,
denied, or impaired without apparent wrong to the whole
state of the nation." Nevertheless their privileges, they
tomplained, "have been more universally and dangerously
infringed than ever since the beginnings of Parliaments."
They had hoped in the new reign to see an end of all

3 2 Their "Apology."
attempts to encroach on their rights which, out of respect
to the age and sex of the late queen, they had suffered on
occasion. They had been grievously disappointed, for (con
trary, no doubt, to his majesty's intentions, and in consequence
of the misinformations referred to) there had been a systematic
attempt in this Parliament to deprive them, not only of their
privileges, but " of the whole freedom of the Parliament and
the nation." In proof of which, they adduced particular
examples, i.e., encroachment on the right of free election and
free speech. " What cause we, your poor Commons, have to
watch over our privileges is (therefore) manifest in itself to
all men. The prerogatives of princes may easily, and do
daily grow. The privileges of the subject are for the most
part at an everlasting stand. They may be by good provi
dence and care preserved, but being once lost, are not
recovered but with much disquiet. If good kings were im
mortal as well as kingdoms, to strive so for privilege were but
vanity, perhaps, and folly, but seeing the same God, who in
His great mercy hath given us a wise king and religious,. doth
also sometimes permit hypocrites and tyrants in His dis
pleasure and for the sins of the people ; from hence hath
the desire of rights, liberties, and privileges, both for Nobles
and Commons, had its just original." In regard to the pro
posed union, they pleaded that the novelty and difficulty of
the subject rendered discussion unavoidable, and instanced
the appointment of a Commission as evidence of their desire
to meet his majesty's wishes. They defended their demand
for ecclesiastical reform as necessary for the welfare of the
State, and adduced the same plea in explanation of their
efforts to abolish oppressive feudal abuses. Finally, they
besought his majesty to beware of alienating the love of the
people by nurturing the suspicion that evil councillors might
presume to traduce their representatives and override their
rights. Let him be guided by his faithful Commons, as repre
sentatives of the people, "whose voice in things of their
knowledge is said to be the voice of God."
This spirited and reasonable vindication of their obstruc
tive attitude made James very angry, and he gave vent to his
anger in no measured terms in the prorogation speech with
which he rated them out of his presence as if they had been a

Disgust of James. 33
parcel of schoolboys. " It hath been ihe form of most kings
to give thanks to their people, however their deserts were. . . .
I will not thank where I think no thanks due. In my govern
ment bypast in Scotland (where I ruled upon men not of the
best temper) I was heard not only as a king, but as a coun
sellor. Contrary, here nothing but curiosity, from morning to
evening, to find fault with my propositions. . . . You see in
how many things you did not well " (referring to the Union
and Puritanism). " The best apology maker of you all, for all
his eloquence, cannot make all good. Forsooth, a goodly
matter to make apologies when no man is by to answer ! You
have done many things hastily. I say not you meant dis
loyalty. . . . Only I wish you had kept a better form. I like
form as much as matter. It shows respect, and I expect it,
being a king as well born as any of my progenitors. I wish
you would use your liberty with more modesty in time to
come. You must know now that the Parliament not sitting,
the liberties are not sitting. My justice shall always sit in
the same seat."
Under the scare of the Gunpowder Plot the session of
1605-6 (November to May) was quite harmonious. The chief
business was to concoct repressive measures against nefarious
Papists, and in this business king, Lords, and Commons co
operated with all too keen zest. The results of their indigna
tion and zeal we have already learned from the statute book.
The spirit of harmony is further apparent in the large grant,
to be spread over four years, with which the Commons, after
lengthy debate, but without undue procrastination, agreed to
come to the relief of their impecunious monarch. James, in
fact, was so gratified by the expressions of goodwill to him
self during the debates that he sent to ask that " a committee
might be named to make demands and propositions." He
even pressed on the Lords the necessity of some reform in
matters ecclesiastical, especially in reference to the abuse of
excommunication, though neither he nor the Lords were pre
pared to go the length of the larger demands of the Commons,
and they had to be content with a measure to limit excom
munication, which became law. They were not more success
ful in their renewed efforts to abolish purveyance, and debated
whether they should condition the grant by the redress of this
VOL. III. C

34 An Interval of Harmony.
and other grievances, which they enumerated in a long petition.
They thought better of it, and resolved to await an answer to
their petition till the following session. Even on the subject
of the union they humoured the king so far as to pass a
Declaratory Act, which, however, committed them to nothing.
No wonder that the prorogation speech was couched in very
different terms from those of 1604.
This mutual goodwill in the work of legislation was, how
ever, short-lived. On reassembling in November 1606 for
their third session, the Commons, indeed, found James fairly
reasonable on the subject of the petition for the redress of
grievances. Every grievance, he assured them in his opening
speech, if unlawful, ought to be abolished, if lawful and yet
tending to abuse, should be reformed, if doubtful in law,
should be put to trial and decided in accordance with law.
As to the abuse of purveyance in particular, he had done his
best to abolish it. With these assurances the Commons
appear to have been satisfied, and the question which im
parted to the session its dominant discordant note was the
touchy one of a closer union with Scotland. With the con
troversy over this question, which related to general national
policy, we need not concern ourselves further than to say that
it embittered once more the relations of king and Commons
and led James to postpone another session for nearly three
years. The financial difficulties, which accumulated with each
additional year, rendered it impossible for him to dispense in
definitely with the co-operation of Parliament in the work of
Government. By 1610 the financial question had become
extremely urgent, and this question is of capital importance
in the struggle between king and Commons. James' extra
vagance was a heavy drain on his purse. He was the very
antithesis of Elizabeth in his facility for allowing himself to be
mulcted by favourites and pension hunters. He was equally
profuse in his personal expenses, was incapable, even in the
face of an alarmingly growing debt, of restricting them, and
though he had his fits of financial retrenchment, he relapsed
immediately into his spendthrift ways. His accession had,
besides, necessitated extraordinary expenditure, and within
three years of it the royal debt had nearly doubled, in spite

The Financial Factor in the Struggle. 35
of the peace with Spain, and he was virtually bankrupt. His
letter to the Commons, of date 18th March 1606, urging them
to be expeditious in their grant, shows the desperate straits to
which he was reduced. On the other hand, while the expen
diture went up with a bound owing to extravagance and,
mismanagement, the tendency of the revenue receipts was to
decline. The amount derived from subsidies, tenths, and
fifteenths — that is, from parliamentary revenue — had, in truth,
been steadily sinking during the reign of Elizabeth. In 1 572
a subsidy and two tenths and fifteenths represented £175,690,
in 1594 £152,290, in 1602 £134,470. In the third year of
James' reign the amount had fallen to £123,897. Moreover,
the value as well as the amount of this revenue had consider
ably decreased compared with that of an earlier time. Thus,
while the country was on the whole becoming wealthier, the
king was becoming poorer. Apart from extravagance and mis
management, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for
the monarch to make ends meet on an income which had not
only shrunk, but was equivalent to a much smaller sum than the
same amount represented two hundred or even one hundred
years earlier. And the constitutional significance of this
eternal impecuniosity is a capital one. It was the grand
obstacle to the realisation of his hobby of playing the absolute
king. He might harp on his divine right and his prerogative
in Parliament and out of Parliament. But an absolute king
cannot live on an impossible income, and must perforce call
the Commons together, if he is to escape from financial chaos.
Or, he might turn his back on Parliament and try to invent all
manner of expedients in virtue of his prerogative to fill the
Exchequer. But if even arbitrary expedients should fail him,
he must come back to Parliament in spite of himself. Thus
it came to pass that he could not avoid the necessity of giving
Parliament the opportunity of occasionally grasping the reins
in his mad career as would-be Apollo of the State, and check
ing if not bringing the royal chariot to a standstill. Of such
opportunity the Commons did not fail to avail themselves, arid
thus the conflict between king and Commons assumes so
largely the character of a quarrel about ways and means. It
would be an exaggeration to say that the conflict was at
bottom a financial one. There were other and greater issues

36 The Question of Impositions.
at stake — constitutional, legal, ecclesiastical — but the financial
factor played a highly important part in the struggle.
James' impecuniosity drove him not only to squeeze
Parliament, but to seek a remedy in new and arbitrary sources
of revenue. A duty on currants had been exacted in Eliza
beth's reign either by the Government, or by the old Levant
Company, which possessed a monopoly of the trade. The
imposition continued to be levied by James without demur
till his right was challenged by John Bates, a member of the
new Levant Company, in 1606. Bates was imprisoned in the
Marshalsea for contempt, but his fellow-merchants appealed
to the Commons, who placed this grievance in the list drawn
up at the end of the session 1605-6. To forestall further
opposition James submitted the question of right to the
Barons of Exchequer. The judges decided that the king
might, by virtue of prerogative, levy impositions on all articles
of import or export, and consequently on currants. One of
them indeed, Baron Fleming, promulgated the questionable
doctrine that the king, being possessed of an absolute autho
rity, besides his ordinary royal power, might exercise his
prerogative in all cases in which the interest of the common
wealth demanded it. He was, moreover, entitled to direct
foreign affairs, regulate commerce at his discretion, and how
could he adequately regulate the foreign trade relations of the
country without the right of imposing duties on imported
goods ? Baron Fleming admitted, however, that James could
not stretch his prerogative so far as to levy impositions on
commodities within the realm without consent of Parliament.
His subjects might trust him not to act to their detriment in
taxing articles of foreign trade.
For the present the Commons accepted the decision
without criticism. They apparently did not perceive that
this reasoning might have serious consequences for others
besides currant merchants. Their intelligence was erelong
to be sharpened by their experience of the exercise of James'
" discretion " in such matters. There is, however, no reason to
believe that the Government was merely seeking for a pretext
to launch a subtle policy of oppression against the subject.
Even Chief Justice Coke, the future protagonist of the opposi
tion to unconstitutional government, gave it as his opinion

The Financial Position in 1610. 37
that the law had been rightly interpreted. It is none the less
patent that the decision was forced, and, in the case of a
ruler who was perpetually harping on his prerogative in other
weighty matters, might become dangerous. The statute of
Edward I. limiting the power of the king in the matter of
customs was explicit enough, and the whole trend of English
constitutional history had been to restrict to a minimum the
means of enabling the king to dispense with the consent of
Parliament in matters of taxation. The decision looked like
a reversal of this tendency in favour of the crown, and it was
unlikely that the practical experience of this reversal would
be tolerated by an assembly which had already manifested
such a keen consciousness of its rights.
The fourth session of James' first Parliament, which began
on the 9th February 1610, made this unlikelihood certainty.
Salisbury, who succeeded Lord Dorset as Treasurer in April
1608, had a dolorous tale of his majesty's financial troubles
to tell the Lords. James was in truth on the verge of bank
ruptcy. The maintenance of the household was an increas
ingly expensive item. The royal profusion to the men about
court had gone on increasing, despite occasional attempts to
economise. He had bound himself by a formal deed not to
alienate crown property, but he was none the less easily
wheedled out of largesses in money. The scandal of this pro
fusion was the talk of the country ; and this talk had become
increasingly indignant with the growth of the evil. The fact
that many of the favourites on whom the public money was
thrown away were Scotsmen did not lessen the public anger.
Ireland, too, was still in a rebellious mood and had swallowed
large sums in payment of the army of occupation which James-
was forced to maintain. There had been, in addition, extra
ordinary expenses such as the entertainment of the King of
Denmark. The responsibility for this increasing expenditure
certainly did not lie with the Lord Treasurer. Salisbury had
done his best to pull James out of the quagmire of impecuni
osity, and while helpless to reduce expenditure, had managed
to clear off a portion of the debt. In 1608 it amounted to
nearly £1,000,000. Two years later he had reduced it to
£300,000. His success was due to his liberal recourse to the
expedient of levying impositions which the judges of the

38 Salisbury's Policy as Treasurer.
Exchequer had declared to be legal in 1606. As the result
of a conference with the London merchants he produced a
scheme of new duties or impositions (Book of Rates) to be
levied on a large number of articles besides currants and
tobacco — 1,100 in all. Most of these were, however, either
articles of luxury or of foreign manufacture, whilst the existing
duties on currants, tobacco, &c, were considerably reduced.
The impositions on foreign goods would, Salisbury argued,
tend to encourage home industries.
Despite the effort to make it both plausible and equitable,
the new policy was by no means popular. The new imposi
tions brought in a sum of £70,000 to the Exchequer, in addi
tion to the ,£57,000 which accrued from currants and tobacco.
£70,000 represented a very large sum in those days, and the
sudden inflation of these extra duties in the ratio of 12 to 1
was a serious check to trade. The merchants loudly com
plained that the new policy was ruining them. Nor could
it claim the merit of being adequate to the end proposed.
Though it enabled Salisbury to reduce the debt, it did not
suffice to make ends meet, and at the convocation of Parlia
ment in the beginning of 16 10 the receipts fell short of expen
diture by £46,000. A deficit of £46,000 was not in the
circumstances an argument likely to commend the new policy
to the House of Commons.
The request for a supply which Salisbury made at a confer
ence of the Lords and Commons on the 15 th February was not,
therefore, received in the best of humour. " Will you," queried
he, in conclusion, " see the shippe of estate drive so near the
porte and suffer it to perish, considering that your owne
fortunes are imbarqued therein ? " The Commons, neverthe
less, showed no alacrity to rush to the rescue, and, on the
contrary, entered on a course of debate and conference which
lasted two sessions instead of one, and ultimately ended in
their leaving the ship of State and its steersman to their fate.
A subsidy, they contended, on retiring to their own chamber,
can only be considered at the end of the session. It is,
besides, for the Commons alone to grant or refuse it, and
before discussing the question they must first consider the
reform of abuses — wardship, feudal tenures, purveyance, the
royal extravagance, for instance. They were willing, in con-

Attitude of the Commons. 39
elusion, to contract with the king for the redress of such
grievances, if only they could get the Lords to join them in
petitioning his majesty to waive these oppressive rights for a
fixed annual sum. This course by no means commended
itself to James and his Lord Treasurer. The question, insisted
Salisbury, at a second conference with the Lords on the 24th
February, is not, What will the king give to his subjects ? but,
What will the subjects give to the king? In other words, the
role of the Commons is not to stand forward as the champion
of the nation, but simply to do the king's will — in this case
to grant supply and be content with what " retribution " his
majesty might give at his royal pleasure. Supply he set
down at £600,000, with a permanent addition of £200,000 if he
should consent to waive the hereditary revenue of the crown
derived from wardship and feudal tenures.
The Lords complied so far with the reforming policy of
the Commons as to transmit their petition for the reform of
these abuses to the king. James, they discovered, was very
touchy as to the limitation of his prerogative in these matters,
and kept them waiting a considerable time for a definite
answer. Pending this answer, the Commons called the atten
tion of the Lords to a book entitled "The Interpreter" — a
law dictionary written by Dr Cowell, Reader in Civil Law at
Cambridge, in which the royal power and prerogative were
exalted at the expense of the rights of Parliament. In the
article " Prerogative," the writer boldly asserted that the King
of England was an absolute king, and it was an open question
whether he could not make laws and demand subsidies dejure
without consent of Parliament. It was, he roundly asserted
in the article " Parliament," incompatible with the constitution
of an absolute monarchy to bind the prince by the laws made
in Parliament. A subsidy, he further contended (article
" Subsidy "), was merely the recognition of his majesty's good
ness in waiving his absolute right to make laws without
consent of Parliament. Moreover, the king (article " King ")
may, in spite of his coronation oath, " alter or suspend any
particular law that seemeth hurtful to the public estate."
These doctrines the Commons declared to be scandalous and
dangerous, and they energetically demanded the punishment
of their author. So keen was their indignation that James

40 The Commons and Dr Cowell.
himself intervened with a condemnation of Cowell's presump
tion in writing on such matters as his prerogative and the
rights of Parliament. He sent a message by Salisbury to
both Houses that if he had known of the publication of the
obnoxious book he would have suppressed it at once. This
he would now do by proclamation. He even went the length
of unequivocally admitting the limitation of his power.
" Though," said Salisbury on his behalf, " the prerogative of
princes is a thing that will admit of noe disputacion, kings
being God's images . . . and further that for his kingdome
he was beholden to noe elective power, neither doth he depend
upon any popular aplause, yet he doth acknowledge that the
lawe did set the crowne upon his head, and he is a kinge by
the common lawe of the land. . . . He had noe power to
make lawes of himselfe, or to exact any subsidies de jure
without the consent of his three Estates."
This declaration was' explicit enough, and the satisfaction
of the Commons was increased a few days later (12th March)
by the royal permission to treat for the abolition of wardship
and tenures in return for a certain round sum. This sum the
Commons fixed, after a fortnight's debate, at £100,000. James,
however, insisted on £200,000 ; the Commons stood firm, and
the negotiation accordingly fell through on the 4th May.
Baulked in their effort to compound for these feudal
burdens, the Commons took up the question of impositions.
Here again they came into collision with the royal prerogative,
and James, in an acrimonious speech, on the 21st May, insisted
on his right to levy impositions, though he would agree to
consult Parliament before levying additional ones. At the
same time he would not absolutely bind himself by parlia
mentary consent. Did not the kings of Denmark, Spain, and
France exercise this right, and should a king of England be
denied it ? Let them not, therefore, in that matter presume
further to question or debate his prerogative.
The Commons were furious and were determined not to
give way. Next day member after member raised his voice
in spirited vindication of the right of freely debating all
matters concerning the interest of the individual as well as
the commonwealth. They finally resolved, therefore, to pre
sent a petition, claiming "this ancient, generall, and undoubted

Commons and the Right of Free Debate. 41
right." They had no desire, in discussing, to impugn the
prerogative. The courts of justice had often discussed, with
out denying it. But they would know whether it could be
exercised in a matter which affected the country so seriously.
To this end debate was indispensable, and they could not
waive their right to debate on such matters without grave
danger to " the ancient liberty of the realm."
James receded before this vigorous language, and made
haste to remove the embargo on free speech. He granted the
petition, explicitly promised to impose no further impositions
" except in Parliament," and urged them to get to business at
last, and grant him supply. This conciliatory answer gave
great satisfaction, and the mollified House took up the subject
of the Contract once more, only to spend week after week
in conference and discussion, and to gravitate, on the 23rd
June, once again, in spite of Salisbury's appeal for expedition,
to the grievous question of impositions. An intricate debate
of four days' duration followed. Lawyers, like Fuller and
Wentworth, ransacked the statute book to prove that the king
could not impose without consent. The very fact, for instance,
that tonnage and poundage were granted by Parliament to
the sovereign at his accession showed that the king had no
right to levy such duties by his own fiat. On the other hand,
argued Montague, another city member, and afterwards Chief
Justice of the King's Bench, these objections are not to the
point. The customs are inherited by the crown, and the
king, as protector of trade, is entitled to increase them so long
as they are moderate and reasonable. There is no law to
hinder him from levying these impositions except in the case
of the three staple commodities, wool, skins, and leather. A
lengthy argument on the same side brought Bacon, who had
become Solicitor-General in 1607, to the same conclusion.
But what, asked his opponents, of the classic statute of
Edward I. (25 Edward I.), by which the king bound himself
and his heirs not to exact an oppressive imposition in defer
ence to the complaints of the Commons? The statute, insisted
Bacon, only prevents the king from imposing on the three
articles which it mentions — wool, skins, leather. But it is so
worded that the undertaking by the king evidently applied
to all such oppressive taxes, whatever the article taxed.

42 Great Debate on Impositions.
" We will not take such things without the assent and good
will of the Commonalty of the realm." So contended Mr
Hakewill, Member for St Michael's. The inhibition was
general, not particular, and this further appeared from a
statute of Edward III. (14 Edward III.), which Bacon had
striven to wrest in support of his contention, and in which
the king asks the Commons to consent to certain extra
impositions for a given period, and distinctly promises to
levy no impositions beyond the usual customs after its ex
piration. But had not the judges in Bates' case explicitly
conferred this right on the king by the common law ? The
judgment, retorted Hedley, Member for Huntingdon, may
bind the parties ; it does not necessarily bind- Parliament.
Parliament may object to the judgment, impugn it, and
declare its will in the interest of the commonwealth. Salus
populi suprema lex. Sir Robert Hitcham, Member for Lynn,
eschewed legal argument, and spoke from the common-sense
point of view. He preferred the middle course, and would
allow the right of imposition where it did not prejudice the
commonwealth. Mr Yelverton, Member for Northampton,
and subsequently Justice of the Common Pleas, anticipating
an argument not unknown in our own days, held that the
king (we should say the Government) must possess the right
of imposition in order to be able to negotiate on an equal
footing with foreign powers. He would even go the length
of recognising the absolute right to impose in virtue of the
common law, international law, and the prerogative. This
conclusion was denounced by Mr Martyn, Member for Wotton
Basset, as conferring on the king " an arbitrary, irregular,
unlimited power." The advocates of prerogative might, he
contended (also from the common-sense standpoint), distin
guish between his regal or absolute and his legal power, but
what boots it to speak of his legal power if the king is the
judge of the limitations imposed by the law on his regal
power ? The King of England is the most absolute of kings
in his Parliament, but, by himself, his power is limited by the
law. Only those who make it can change it. The Attorney-
General, Sir William Hobart, brought back the discussion
into the domain of legal technicality. His study of the com
mon law had convinced him, he admitted, that the king can-

Arguments For and Against. 43
not change laws without assent of Parliament. But in all
sovereign States there are certain jura majestatis (rights of
peace and war, creation of magistrates, summoning of assem
blies, &c). If the State be popular, these reside in the people;
if a monarchy, in the king. That the right of levying im
positions was among the number, he laboured to prove by
citing precedents which, in his view, were incontrovertible.
Precedents, he admitted, might be quoted in support of the
contrary, " but," argued he, " if you confesse my precedents,
the question is at an end." The fact that he quoted the
classic statutes of both Edward I. and Edward III. among
the number, does not, however, make his learned argument
more plausible.
With the learned Attorney-General's contention we may
close the debate, though a large number of lawyers, among
them Whitelocke, Finch, and Laurence Hyde, still brought
the battery of their erudition to bear for or against it before
the speakers on both sides expended all their powder, as
Carleton put it, on the 2nd July. It is not easy to follow the
argumentation of the lawyers in the form in which it has been
handed down to us. We have, for the most part, only the
barest outline of what they said both pro and contra. But
fragmentary as the report of the scribe is, the debate is a
brilliant illustration of how the statutes of the realm may be
quoted and twisted to prove diametrically opposite proposi
tions. The lack of precise terminology and the difficulty ot
applying it to a given case centuries after its enactment, as
well as the bias of the disputants on either side, must be dis
counted. But even making allowance for these drawbacks,
it appears evident that the men who argued against these
impositions seized on the whole the true import and bearing
of the musty documents to which they appealed. The
statutes which prohibited Edward I., Edward III., and other
kings from levying impositions were clearly directed against
the exercise of a power detrimental to the commonweal.
The Commons of that time struck at the system as well as
at its exercise in particular cases. Whether the Commons
of that time took care to use unequivocal terms or not — and
the contentions of the crown lawyers and their supporters
point to looseness of construction — it is certain that no im-

44 No Impositions without Consent.
position that was grievous to the subject was considered to
be legal, and the Commons in 1610 were only acting in
accordance with the spirit of the constitution when they
resisted the claim of the king to manufacture grievances,
and insisted on safeguarding the subject from its exercise.
They held that they and not the king, especially an extrava
gant king, were the best judges of what was a grievance and
what was not. They evidently held, further, that it was for
the king to yield when Parliament challenged him on any
question which affected the interests of the nation. More
over, the question was an economic as well as a constitutional
one. The Commons, in their revulsion from monopolist
trading companies and an increasing tariff, strove for greater
liberty of trade as well as constitutional right. Hence the
predominant note of resistance throughout this wordy debate.
In spite of the reasonings of a Bacon or a Hobart and the
learning with which they supported it, the large majority
resolved to insert impositions without consent of Parliament
in the petition of grievances which they presented on the
7th of July. It was so bulky that James humorously
remarked that " it would serve for a piece of tapestry." In
spite of its bulk, he succeeded three days later in tolerably
satisfying his petitioners by undertaking not to levy any new
impositions without consent of Parliament, and promising
his assent to a Bill to this effect to be brought in by the
Commons. Whereupon they granted one subsidy and one
fifteenth. It was a small return for so great a concession,
but the opponents of the spendthrift, domineering king were
too suspicious to trust him with too much ready money, or
to gift away the power to bring him to book. As a roguish
member remarked sotto voce, the subsidy would do the king
much good, for it would bring him to answer for himself
whenever he was wanted {Subpoena ad melius respondendum).
On the subject of the Contract, too, they ultimately suc
ceeded in coming to an agreement, and bought up the pre
rogative in respect of purveyance and respite of homage, as
well as of wardships and tenures for a fixed sum of £200,000
per annum, reserving only the mode of levying it for the next
session (The Great Contract, July 17-23). Unfortunately, the
Bill against impositions, which was read a third time on the

James and the Commons' Petition. 45
17th July and sent to the Lords, did not get beyond the stage
of a first reading in the Upper House.
The bulky petition which had astonished James was
swelled by grievances relative to the Church as well as the
State. While demanding renewed severities against recus
ants, on the strength of the assassination of Henry IV. of
France, the Commons had not forgotten their Puritan friends,
and they asked James, inter alia, to allow the ministers de
prived for nonconformity to preach, to abolish pluralities, to
restrict the abuse of excommunication, and to limit by statute
the powers of the High Commission as incompatible with the
rights of the subject and the civil courts. They added a
protest against the excessive use of royal proclamations which
threatened to displace the law, and some of which were oppres
sive as well as illegal. In reply on the 23rd July, the day
on which he prorogued Parliament to the following October,
James refused point blank to tolerate preaching ministers who
would not subscribe to the whole Prayer Book, though he
would discriminate according to their offence in dealing with
delinquents. He was more compliant on the subject of
pluralities, and would enjoin the bishops to see that pluralists
maintained qualified curates. If the bishops neglected their
duty, he would take the reform into his own hands. He would
give his assent to any Bill to prevent excessive excommunica
tions, .and would limit the powers of ecclesiastical commissions,
though he would not go the length of restricting their pro
cedure and safeguarding the liberty of the subject from the
abuses complained of by specific legislation. He admitted
that proclamations had not equal force with the laws, and
while emphasising his prerogative in this matter, would make
a more sparing use of it in future.
These answers, though conciliatory in tone, fell far short of
the expectations of the Commons. Toleration for the Puritans,
the statutory abolition of the oppressive powers of the ecclesi
astical courts, were as far off as ever. Even in his concessions
James took care to emphasise his prerogative, and plainly
showed that he would not submit to any parliamentary inter
ference with the exercise of his ecclesiastical supremacy by
fresh legislation conceived in a Puritan spirit. The Com
mons were far from satisfied, and their dissatisfaction speedily

46 Disagreement over the Contract.
found vent on their reassembling for their fifth session in
October. The Great Contract still lacked the finishing touches, and
the Commons, it was soon apparent, were determined to re
fuse to complete the bargain unless they received full satis
faction in the matter of grievances. They began, as usual, by
conferring with the Lords. A fortnight passed and decision
was as far off as ever. James thereupon intervened with a
peremptory request for an answer — yea, or nay. He would
know where he stood, and must at once take some course of
his own to raise the needful if the Contract should fall through.
Instead of complying, the Commons set to work to propose
and discuss guarantees that Parliament should be regularly
assembled, even if the king's wants were supplied, that all
arbitrary fiscal expedients should be abandoned, &c. To
these tactics James replied by insisting on a grant of supply
of £500,000, in addition to the sums to be given him by the
Contract, and raising this sum from £200,000 to £280,000.
He had, in fact, come to the conclusion that he was to be the
loser by the bargain and would not take less. This proposal
the Commons refused to entertain, and there was an end of the
matter. " God," said Salisbury, who ruefully saw the final
collapse of his grand financial schemes, " hath not blessed it."
The demand for a supply only intensified the demand for
absolute satisfaction in respect of the grievances covered by
the Contract as well as those contained in the petition. It was
in vain that Salisbury assured them of his majesty's general
willingness to consent to Bills dealing with several of these
grievances. James must absolutely renounce impositions.
He must as absolutely yield in the matter of proclamations
contrary to law which, in the interval between the sessions,
had been declared by Coke and his three fellow-judges,
Fleming, Tanfield, and Altham, to be illegal. He must consent
to tolerate Puritans. He must cease to squander the revenue
on a host of worthless Scottish favourites. He must submit
" to live of his own " by recalling the pensions thus scandal
ously bestowed. He must respect without reservation the
rights and liberties of Parliament. In this outspoken and de
termined tone the debate stormed onwards from day to day,
intensifying the royal anger as it went. James was infuriated

Further Conflict and Dissolution. 47
by the blunt criticism, not only of his Government but of his
court. He threatened to send Wentworth to the Tower as
Elizabeth had done his father. At the entreaty of the Council
he thought better of it, and instead dissolved Parliament in
his testiest manner on the 9th February 161 1.
SOURCES. — Journals of the Lords, ii. ; Journals of the
Commons, vol. i. ; Statutes at Large, vol. iii. ; Constitutional
History, v. ; Cobbett's Parliamentary History, i. For the two
sessions of 1 6 10- 1 1 these Histories have been largely super
seded by the Notes of a Member of the House of Commons,
edited by Gardiner, under the title of Parliamentary Debates
in 1610, for the Camden Society (1862); Petyt, Jus Parlia-
mentarium for the Petition of Grievances presented in 16 10;
Cowell's Interpreter (1607); Prothero, Statutes and Con
stitutional Documents of the reign of James (1890); Good
man, Bishop of Gloucester and a contemporary, The Court of
King James I., edited by Brewer (1839); Camden, Annals of
James I., and, Wilson, History of James I., both in Kennet's
Compleat History of England, ii. (1719) ; Court and Times
of James I., Original Letters, edited by Birch, i. (1849) !
Gardiner, History of England, vol. i. ;- Spedding, Life and
Times of Sir Francis Bacon (1878).

CHAPTER IV.
Government by Prerogative and its Failure
(1611-1621).
James, unfortunately, had learned little from these seven
years of conflict with the Commons. He saw, indeed, that
his prerogative, as he understood it, was menaced ; he realised
that the Commons would no longer be content to be repressed
in this matter as Elizabeth had repressed them. But while
he understood clearly enough the drift of their demands, he
did not learn how to manage a public-spirited assembly.
Against the unmistakable tendency to restrict the power of
the crown, his only answer was to emphasise it. He might
at times profess willingness to rule in accordance with the
constitution, to recognise and respect rights and liberties. He
even on one occasion admitted the right of the Commons to
initiate legislation, to propose measures for the common
utility if the king should oversee them. Nevertheless, he
would admit no diminution of what he conceived to be his
own rights, and his striving was to harp on them, in season
and out of season, and to press them as far as he possibly
could. In the Commons, on the other hand, the predominant
tendency was jealousy of the royal power, determination to
press their claims in every contingency in which friction
should arise. James' sensitiveness as to his prerogative made
him quick enough to discern every whiff of encroachment.
What he did not see was that the Commons had entered
on a life and death struggle, and that no makeshift arrange
ment was possible. He must give way all along the line
of struggle ; the will of Parliament, not his, must be the
real factor of legislation and government. In other words,
the nation, as incorporated in the Commons more particu
larly, knows best what is for the public good, and the views
of one individual must not be allowed to stand in its way.

Impossibility of Ruling without Parliament. 49
The Commons' respect for law, their love of liberty within
legal limits, had become a passion, a fixed idea, and in fight
ing against men whose principles had become a passion, he
might as well have fought against the martyrs who had
braved the flames or the wild beasts in Reformation or primi
tive Christian times. He might hector, rebuke what he
deemed insubordination, and even threaten to arrest obnoxious
outspoken members. With the disappearance of Elizabeth
the time for hectoring speeches had passed. He would not get
a penny of supply though he flouted ever so arrogantly, and
if he could not get supply, the deep-seated determination of
the Commons was bound ultimately, in view of his inveterate
impecuniosity, to press him from the vantage ground of pre
rogative down to the level of the constitutional king.
Within four years, this question of supply had again reached
the desperate stage. Expenditure had gone on exceeding
the revenue at an alarming rate, in spite of extraordinary
expedients such as the creation of a large number of baronet
cies at £1,000 apiece, the sale of crown lands, loans, &c. In
1614 the debt had swelled again to nearly £700,000, and with
a deficit of nearly £200,000 in addition, it was clearly hope
less to attempt longer to ignore Parliament. To resuscitate
Parliament was, however, a very questionable experiment.
From the standpoint of efficiency, James' government for the
last four years had by no means been a satisfactory one. He
had, in fact, succeeded in alienating the nation from his auto
cratic system by the incapacity to rule for the commonweal,
of which each successive year yielded increasing testimony.
A monarch who posed so grandiloquently as ruler by divine
right, and prided himself on his sagacity, should at least have
taken some pains to select men of ability and character as
his ministers. He believed no doubt that James Stuart was
an all-sufficient mortal. He prided himself on his omni
science in all subjects, from theology to tobacco, from high
mysteries of State to demonology. In spite of this omni
science he was in the practical work of government, as in the
art of poetry, but " a 'prentice hand." The older he grew the
more dependent he became on the shallow, showy courtiers
who caught his fancy and whom he mistook for wise men.
Of these the most shining example at this period was Robert
VOL. III. D

50 Favouritism and Corruption.
Carr, whom he made Viscount Rochester and Earl of Somer
set. In the elevation of Carr to rank and political influence
his imprudence and the immorality of his court alike received
shocking illustration. The fact that he patronised and petted
the hero of the miserable intrigue which led to the divorce of
the Countess of Essex from her husband, is a lamentable
index of his inability to judge character or rule the country
in virtue of mere divine right. He earned his share of the
odium of this divorce, which rid the countess of an incon
venient husband and paved the way for an infamous marriage,
by intermeddling as a partisan in favour of a profligate
woman and an unprincipled adventurer.
In patronising adventurers like Somerset he was reducing
government in England to the level of the gamester. That
he should accept the services of new men was in itself no
crime, even if they were Scotsmen. The touchy and ill-
mannered patriotism of England in this respect deserved to
be snubbed. Englishmen forgot that their forefathers had
been quite willing to lavish English treasure to reduce Scot
land to the level of an English province and turn it into a
hunting-ground for English adventurers. They forgot, too,
that the elevation of new-comers to position and power in the
State was no new feature of English history. The Tudor
ministers were for the most part men who owed their fortune
to their brains, not to their birth. But, in adopting this policy,
James blundered most woefully in his choice of counsellors ,
after the death of Salisbury, himself comparatively a new
comer. Salisbury was a man of ability, though no statesman
of the first rank. He was an Englishman, and James now
reposed his confidence more and more in men who had not
only little or no ability, but some of whom were Scotsmen.
Scotsmen of the type of a Carr were not fitted by character
or talent to do honour to their country, and their advancement,
despite an English title, could only lacerate the disgust which
their nationality alone was fitted to excite. The art of govern
ment under such auspices was the art of gambling. Corruption
was the only passport to promotion.
The discontent with which the country had witnessed the
dissolution of Parliament in 1611 had thus had ample material
to feed on during the next four years. Bacon, who became

The Parliament of 1 6 14. 51
Attorney-General in 161 3, was entirely wrong when he tried
to persuade James that the quarrel of 16 10 was forgotten by
1614, and that even the leaders of the opposition had come to
see their folly. " The old grievances cannot but wax dead and
flat," he wrote to the king in 1614. "The opposition cannot
but find more and more the vanity of that popular course."
The sequel was strikingly to falsify this sanguine prognostica
tion of a submissive Parliament, and Sir Henry Nevill was
certainly the truer prophet when he warned James that the
nation was as determined as ever to secure necessary reforms,
and exhorted him to strive to gain the confidence of the
Commons instead of estranging them by irritating speeches.
The fact of this estrangement received marked expression
even during the elections. Suspicion had spread a rumour
that the Government was seeking in clandestine fashion to
influence the votes of electors through its " undertakers " or
agents. The report seems to have exaggerated these election
eering intrigues, but it was sufficient to dash the chance of
many Government candidates, and to rouse hostility even to
the interference of the local magnates who favoured the court
party. A very large majority of the constituencies returned
members pledged to support the opposition. Leaders like
Whitelocke, Wentworth, Sandys, Hakewill, Fuller, were sent
back to Westminster with acclamation to champion once more
the rights of Parliament and subject. Among the crowd of
new members were Eliot and Sir Thomas Wentworth, one of
the representatives of Yorkshire. On the other hand, some
of the old champions of prerogative failed to hold their seats.
In spite of James' opening exhortation on the 5th April
to eschew the spirit of bargaining, the Commons, it presently
appeared, had not forgotten impositions, ecclesiastical abuses,
&c. When, on the nth, Winwood, who had succeeded to
Salisbury's place as Secretary, ventured to move a supply,
there was not a syllable about impositions or ecclesiastical
abuses in the list of petty concessions which the king was
ready to grant. On the following day the House showed an
ominous proclivity to supply these deficiencies. Middleton,
one of the borough members, presented a Bill against imposi
tions. Wentworth moved for a committee to consider religion,
Weston and Whitelocke were jealous for freedom of elections,

52 The Appeal to an Original Contract.
and inquired about the undertakers. Against these assertive
members, Secretary, Attorney-General, and Chancellor of the
Exchequer (Sir Julius Caesar) argued to no purpose. In the
matter of grievances the new House of Commons was as
insistent as the old. On the 14th, on the motion of Sandys,
it directed the petition of grievances of 1610 to be laid before
the Committee of Petitions. From this quarry it proceeded
to draw the material of debate day after day, during which
Whitelocke, Hakewill, Fuller, Sandys repeated the old argu
ments against impositions for the benefit of the new members,
It resolved finally to ask the Lords for a conference on the
subject. Thereupon followed, on the 21st May, a lengthy
discussion on the points which their spokesmen were to bring
forward in the Upper House against the royal claim to impose.
Remind the Lords, urged Owen rather irrelevantly, that not
a single king in Europe hath the right to impose without the
consent of the Estates, let alone the King of England. All
kings owe their power originally to election, and if they tax
their subjects without their ' consent, it is contrary to the law
of all nations. He was contradicted by Winwood and Wotton,
who hazarded the doctrine that while an elective king could
not impose, a hereditary king might, and instanced the right
of taxation exercised by the kings of France and Spain.
Owen insisted none the less on the doctrine of the Contract,
and replied that a right de facto was not a right de jure ; in
other words, that usurpation does not constitute right. Let
us, interposed Digges, be content to appeal to the law.
Nolumus mutare leges Anglice. This appeal to the doctrine
of the Contract as well as to the law in an English Parlia
ment is significant. It shows that some of these Commoners
had been reading Hooker as well as Bracton, and that they
were inclined to argue the question of right on grounds of
theory as well as law. Sir Edward Sandys, who followed
Digges, was, in truth, more explicit on this point than Owen.
To follow the example of the kings of France and Spain,
urged he, will land us in pure tyranny. Every king, even a
hereditary one, owes his throne to the common consent ex
pressed in the original compact between king and people, and
every potentate who professes a claim, not based on contract,
may be expelled from the throne. Wentworth, who followed,

Indignation of the Commons. 53
was still more defiant of kings who override the rights of
peoples by their arbitrary courses in such matters. "Sir
Edward Sandys," wrote Chamberlain to Carleton, "went
further, and was more bitter in the conclusion of his speech.
But the boldest Bayard of all was Wentworth (the Member
for Oxford city), who said that the just reward of the Spaniards'
imposition was the loss of the Low Countries, and for France
that their late most exalting kings died like calves on the
butcher's knife, that such princes might read their destiny in
the 45 th of Ezekiel, verse 7, or thereabouts, but especially in
Daniel the nth chapter, verse 20."
The Lords, however, did not give the representatives of
the Commons the privilege of urging such democratic argu
ments in their presence. They refused by a majority to
confer. The Commons were deeply chagrined by this rebuff,
and their anger was aggravated by the insolent language in
which Neile, the Bishop of Lincoln, denounced their presump
tion in attacking the prerogative. They were, he contemptu
ously declared, "a factious, mutinous, seditious assembly."
Neile was sufficiently obnoxious as a court sycophant, who
pandered to Somerset, and was ready to sell his soul for
preferment. His insolence stung the Commons to the quick.
They loudly demanded satisfaction, and declared that they
would do no business till the insult had been wiped out.
One hot-headed member demanded his banishment. Another
would be content with nothing less than his head. A third
would confiscate the revenues of his see for seven years in lieu
of supply. Their clamour exasperated the king, who saw the
hope of a grant rapidly slipping away, but it forced the Lords
to bring the offender formally to protest that he had not
meant to speak ill of the members of the Lower House.
Still the Commons would not be mollified, and in spite of urgent
royal messages to get to the business of supply, they spent
several days in raking up a number of aspersions against the
luckless bishop's character. " You see what a tempest we are
in," wrote Chamberlain to Carleton, " which God knows how
or when it will be calmed." At length, on the 3rd June,
James fulminated his ultimatum. Unless they would forth
with address themselves to the question of supply, he would
dissolve Parliament. While this ultimatum sobered the more

54 Intensified Friction and Dissolution.
moderate of the angry orators, it only excited the hastier
spirits to greater defiance. Christopher Nevill fell foul of
the breed of court favourites, whom he described as " spaniels
to the king and wolves to the people." Hoskyns, Member for
Hereford city, reminded his hearers of Canute, who made a
clean sweep of his Danish favourites, and hinted that there
might be a repetition of the Sicilian Vespers in store for the
Scottish parasites of the English nation. " There was never
known a more disorderly House," notes the unsympathetic
Chamberlain. " It was many times more like a cockpit than
a grave council."
James could stand it no longer. On the 7th June he
declared Parliament dissolved, and gave rein to his anger by
sending Wentworth, Hoskyns, Christopher Nevill to the
Tower, and threatening Owen and Sandys with the same
fate. "Whereby this meeting or assembly," continues
Chamberlain, " is to be held a blank Parliament, or rather a
parley." It got in fact the name of the " addle " or barren
Parliament. Its two months' debates contributed not a single
Act to the statute book. Its constitutional importance is not,
however, to be measured by the statute book, but by the
Commons' Journal. From the scrappy notes of the debates
which the official scribe has left, it is evident that the fighting
spirit of the Commons had only increased in the interval
between 1610 and 1614. Sir Henry Nevill had proved a
truer interpreter of the public temper than Sir Francis Bacon.
They not only continued to confront prerogative with law;
they went, tentatively at least, the length of limiting it by
reason and natural right. The self-consciousness of the
Commons was evidently growing in the ratio of the self-con
sciousness of the king. The Lords might still show them
selves amenable to the influence of a court and refuse to
anger the king in order to humour the Commons. Yet even
thirty out of the seventy-one peers present voted for a
conference on the subject of impositions, and the Lords
might one day be found co-operating with the Lower House
in resistance to Stuart despotism, if James went much further
on the road to that despotism by the arbitrary imprisonment
of men who denounced his policy, or defied his imperious will
in their capacity as legislators.

Futile Appeal to the Nation. 55
James was presently to be convinced by hard facts in
which direction the sympathy of the people lay. A regular
supply being frustrated by the resolute reforming spirit of
the Commons, he determined to appeal to the generosity of
the nation. The courtiers might hasten to the rescue with
their contributions. The Archbishop of Canterbury might
give a costly basin and a ewer and redeem them for £140.
The bishops might be proportionally generous. Ministers,
court functionaries, judges, great noblemen, men in place or
ambitious of place, the crowd of lesser aspirants for favour,
ever ready to buy distinction by a show of patriotism or
charity, might vie with one another in their gifts. The
appeal to the counties to emulate this noble example of
loyalty and patriotism fell, nevertheless, on deaf ears for the
most part. Renewed appeals, even though barely disguised
commands, brought only a sporadic response. Some of the
counties refused outright, and appealed to the law against
benevolences. Others allowed themselves to be brow-beaten
by threatening letters from the Council, and sent up contri
butions which, in some cases, swelled to three figures, in
others did not extend beyond two. To distinguish between
gifts thus reluctantly given and benevolences, as Bacon and
even Coke attempted to do, was merely to play with words,
and the miserable pittance which the whole of England contri
buted from July 1614 to March 1617 shows what value the
country attributed to the distinction. The total of nearly
three years' squeezing was only £66,000. The language of
the Council was pure cant, but outspoken individuals like
Oliver St John, who denounced this cant and accused the
king of perjury, were taught by heavy fine and imprisonment
the danger of speaking too freely of royal or Privy Council
hypocrisy. James' striving to set himself above the law had brought
him into antagonism not only with the Parliament, but with
the judges, and more particularly with Chief Justice Coke.
Coke had already signalised his inflexibility as a judge and
his supreme reverence for the law by his opposition to the
oppressive procedure of the ecclesiastical judges of the
High Commission. He had withstood Bancroft, who died
in 161 1, and Abbot, his successor, in maintaining that the

56 Opposition of Chief Justice Coke.
High Commission could only fine and imprison in cases of
schism and heresy. In cases which touched civil rights its
jurisdiction ceased. Both Bancroft and Abbot appealed to
the king, and it was on the occasion of the debate on this
crucial point in the king's presence, on the 13th November
1608, that Coke uttered the famous vindication of the law
against the royal prerogative which he afterwards wrote down
in one of his Reports, and which, though not perhaps correct
in detail, substantially conveys to us the characteristic and
widely divergent contentions of the champion of law and the
champion of prerogative. During the debate Bancroft claimed
that the king might take any cause he pleased out of the
hands of the judges and decide it himself. This right accrued
to him in virtue of the royal authority which he derived from
God. The king, retorted Coke, cannot adjudicate in any
criminal or civil cause. According to the law and custom of
England this can only be done in a court of justice. The
law, interposed the king, is founded on reason, and he and
others have reason as well as the judges. God, returned
Coke, has endowed his majesty with excellent knowledge and
great endowments of nature, but his majesty is not learned in
the laws of England, and causes concerning the lives or goods
of his subjects are decided not by natural reason, but by
artificial reason and the dictates of the law. The art of
interpreting the law requires long study and experience. The
law is the golden metewand to measure and try all causes
and to protect his majesty in safety and peace. Greatly
angered by these bold words, James retorted that he was
above the law and that it was treason to affirm that he was
not. To this Coke replied by quoting Bracton, "That the
king ought not to be under man, but under God and the
law." Coke was equally resolute in resisting the attempt of
James to influence the judges to give verdicts in his favour, as
in the trial of a man with a grievance like Peacham the Puritan
Vicar of Hinton St George, in Somerset, who took to railing
at large against the Government, and bade the king beware
of the judgment of God. He refused to see treason in
an atrabilious sermon which Peacham had written, but not
delivered, and on which the Attorney-General strove to base

Bacon and Coke. 57
the capital charge. Bacon hit on the device of advising the
king to consult his three fellow-judges of the King's Bench
separately. Coke protested against such tactics as subversive
of the dignity and integrity of the bench ; his colleagues were
less conscientious, and allowed the crown lawyers to wheedle
out of them, in this clandestine fashion, the opinion that
Peacham had intended to preach treason and might be
brought to trial as a traitor. Tried he accordingly was, and,
after having been put to the torture, sentenced to be hanged.
Coke's opposition to James' overweening sense of his pre
rogative and the illegal tactics into which it seduced him was
stiffened by his antagonism to Bacon. Between the Attorney-
General and the Chief Justice there was a wide gulf both in
political principle and in character. Bacon possessed by far
the larger intelligence of the two, for his mind was of that
universal range which impelled it to conquer the whole field
of knowledge and of that independent caste which revolted
against the traditional in science and philosophy. He was,
however, a great believer in traditional authority in the State,
and had not advanced beyond the Elizabethan conception of
government. He had more faith in the authority of the king
than in the striving of the Commons to be the directive force
in the State, especially if the king would be guided by men of
genius like himself. He was, moreover, biassed by his desire
to ingratiate himself into the royal favour, and thus secure the
personal advancement for which he had waited all too long. By
political predilection and personal motives he was, therefore,
disposed to champion the prerogative against both Parliament
and judges.
If the Attorney-General was a man of genius, the Chief
Justice was a man of character. He would not waive his con
victions to please even a king, not to mention an Attorney-
General. He believed in the supremacy of the law and the
independence of the judges with all the intensity of a passion.
His unrivalled knowledge of law and precedent, his profound
veneration for that vast body of legal rules bequeathed by the
centuries, a firmness in maintaining its supremacy which
bordered on obstinacy, a blunt and choleric integrity which
made it impossible for him to play the courtier, a consuming
sense of the dignity of his position as chief administrator of

58 Coke as Protagonist of the Law

&^

the law of the land — all tended to beget in him a stern spirit
of resistance to the predominant worship of prerogative in
court circles. Prynne justly called him " the eminent pillar
and patron," Wilson, "a storehouse and magazine of the
common law." Whitelocke in the "Liber Famelicus" de
scribed him as " the most just, honest, and uncorruptible judge
that ever sate on bench."
If Bacon had prerogative, Coke had law on the brain.
Both king and Parliament must give way before the dictum
of the law, as delivered by its exponent in chief. This
assumption might of course lead to the tyranny of a few men
on the bench, might be a bar to constitutional progress as well
as to royal absolutism. Coke was too narrow a legist to
perceive that the law, especially constitutional law, being what
it was — vague at times and unsystematic in general — it was
rather a large assumption to give the last word to the judges
in every contentious question between king and nation. All
the same it was better at this conjuncture to have even a
narrow enthusiast at the head of the English bench to oppose
his inflexible will to the arbitrary tactics and high doctrines
of James and his all too compliant Attorney-General, who was
about to become Privy Councillor and Lord Chancellor of
England. " Coke," says Mr Gardiner most aptly, " was
fortunate in the epoch in which he lived. Two hundred
years later his name would have gone down to posterity, with
Eildon's, as that of a bigoted adversary of all reform." His
self-assertion, from the standpoint of his epoch, has, however,
more merits than defects, even if the Chief Justice might go
too far in constituting himself the absolute arbiter of the con
stitution. In contrast to James, he did so at all events in no
absolutist spirit. It was his defence of the law and his desire
that the law should be supreme that in the main dictated his
attitude. His personal dislike of Bacon — and the mutual
friction of these two men doubtless influenced the views and
attitude of both — only steeled his jealousy as the keeper of a
trust which he regarded, with exaggeration no doubt, as the
only perfect legal system on earth.
To topple this doughty champion of the law from his
high pedestal and reduce the judges to a proper level of sub
ordination was now the policy of James and Bacon, and pre-

Friction between King and Judges. 59
texts for putting it in operation were at such a time not lacking.
James' high notions which aroused the spirit of resistance in
Parliament must sooner or later challenge a conflict with the
law courts. There is no avoiding the conclusion that, in spite
of his profession of respect for the law, he was determined to
be indisputable master in all matters to which he considered
his prerogative extended. He would brook no limitation
even from the judges in the name of law. They must be
taught to fear to tread on this forbidden ground. Coke, at all
events, was not the man to shrink from treading even on this
forbidden ground in the exercise of what he considered his
own prerogative. He insisted, in reference to a case in which
friction had arisen between the Court of Chancery and the
Common Law Courts, that the judges of the latter had the
right to hear and decide all suits brought before them, in spite
of any claim of the Chancellor in Chancery to limit their pro
cedure. He contended, moreover, by a forced interpretation
of an old statute, in reference to another case, that the Court
of Chancery could not deal with a suit which had been decided
by the Common Law Courts, and that its officials were liable
to prosecution for so doing.
In this quarrel about jurisdiction between the Chancellor
and the Chief Justice the prerogative was, however, not
seriously menaced. More serious, from the point of view
of its champions, was the case in which the king's right to
grant a living in commendam to Bishop Neile was contested
before the twelve judges. James interfered to warn Coke and
his colleagues not to give judgment before consulting him.
Coke and his colleagues continued, nevertheless, to argue the
case, and asserted, in reply to a further inhibition, that they
were bound to decide in accordance with the law, not with
the wishes of the king. James disclaimed any desire to
influence their decision, but was he not a party to the case,
and should he not have a personal hearing? There was
some force in the question, and Coke and his fellow-judges,
on being taken to task, in the royal presence, for their pre
cipitation, fell on their knees and begged the royal pardon.
The king might, and did, argue that in this particular matter
he was in the right and the judges were in the wrong. The
case in itself has more a personal than a political interest.

60 James' Doctrine of Kingship.
Its importance lies in the fact that it was made the pretext
for demanding an admission on the part of the judges that in
all cases, in which the king chose to interfere on the plea of
prerogative, they were bound to admit the claim, and stay
proceedings accordingly. To this far-reaching ultimatum
eleven of them submitted. Coke alone refused to com
promise his independence, and open the way for the system
atic interference of the king in the administration of justice,
to which this admission might easily lead. " When that case
should be," replied he, " he would do that which should be fit
for a judge to do." The answer may appear evasive : it was,
at least, prudent. It was certainly not safe to give an un
reserved undertaking to a king, who was prerogative mad,
that he would never oppose its assertion. His colleagues
undertook not to permit the royal prerogative to be questioned
in their presence.
A fortnight later (20th June 1616) James expounded
ex cathedra in the Star Chamber, for the benefit of the judges
and mankind at large, apropos of the question of disputed
jurisdiction, his doctrine of kingship. It was that which he
had put in print in the " Trew Lawe of Free Monarchy " and
the " Basilikon Doron." He was king by divine ordinance, and
this plea was, for him, sufficient to silence all attempts to
question his supreme will. The judges in particular must do
his bidding. " Encroach not," he commanded, " on the pre
rogative of the crown. If there fall out a question which
concerns my prerogative or mystery of State, deal not
with it till you consult with the king, or his Council, or both.
. . . Blunt the sharp edge and vain popular humour of some
lawyers at the bar that think they are not eloquent or bold-
spirited enough except they meddle with the king's preroga
tive. . . . That which concerns the mystery of the king's
power is not lawful to be disputed, for that is to wade into the
weakness of princes, and to take away the mystical rever
ence that belongs unto them that sit on the throne of God.
... As for the absolute prerogative of the crown, that is no
subject for the tongue of a lawyer, nor is it lawful to be dis
puted. It is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can
do : good Christians content themselves with His revealed
will in His Word. So it is presumption and high contempt

Dismissal of Coke. 61
in a subject to dispute what a king can do, or say that a king
cannot do this or that ; but rest in that which is the king's
will revealed in his law."
Some historians are disposed to see in this overweening
language merely the assertion of the supremacy of the State,
and to account for it by saying, as Mr Gardiner does, that " in
every constitution there must be some fundamental power,
the authority of which is received as binding without dispute."
But the personal tone of the orator betrays the fact that he
regarded himself as constituting the State by divine fiat. We
know what this assumption led to in the case of a Louis XIV.,
and it is evident from his own words that the striving of
James was to anticipate a Louis XIV. in silencing all opposi
tion to his kingly will on the part of the subject. The resist
ance that he had encountered from both Parliament and
bench had not taught him prudence, compromise. It had
only made him more pugnacious, assertive, self-conscious.
His egotism had only become more pronounced with the
irritation of opposition. Such high-flown deliverances could
not but grate on the awakened sense of right and the grow
ing aspiration after liberty to which Parliament had given
unmistakable expression. Coke might be wrong on the
question of jurisdiction : he only interpreted the growing feel
ing of the nation when he strove to set a barrier to the per
sonal absolutism which revels in this arrogant speech. In that
atmosphere of sycophancy which James now breathed with such
satisfaction, there was no room for a Coke. He was suspended
(30th June), directed to revise his Reports in keeping with
this absolutist doctrine, and, on his failure to give satisfaction
in this respect, finally (15th November) deprived of his
office. With his dismissal James might congratulate him
self that, for a season at least, he had both law and liberty
at his feet. He was master of a subservient bench, lord of a
sycophant court. If he could only have reckoned on a
sufficient revenue in addition, and thus have steered clear
of a public-spirited Parliament, he might have complacently
continued to " sit on the throne of God " for the rest of his
reign. He was, however, not destined to sit for long at ease even
on his own throne. Personal absolutism could only succeed in

62 The Duke of Buckingham.
a strong ruler, even if the strong ruler could have weathered
the reaction from Tudor despotism, and every year only
demonstrated the increasing weakness and scandal of James'
government. Somerset was tried and condemned to death
as a murderer, along with his infamous wife, and the dis
grace of the unprincipled favourite reflected on the master
who had raised him to such unmerited greatness. Somerset's
place was taken by George Villiers, who shot like a meteor
into favour and honour as Earl and Duke of Buckingham and
Lord High Admiral of England. Bacon, while assiduously
cultivating the new favourite in his characteristic fashion,
gave him much good advice to use his power for the common
weal. His advice was wasted. Villiers' head was turned by
the good fortune that hoisted him at a bound into almost
absolute sway over his admiring patron. He had not force of
character or sufficiency of ability to use his position for high
ends. He was the vain, showy, shallow satellite of the vain
and all-sufficient monarch, and as the keeper of the royal
favour he attracted and ruled the host of time-servers which
swarmed at court. The influence of such a man only swelled
the flowing tide of corruption, peculation, sycophancy, and
James let the tide flow as it would. " If I were to imitate
the conduct of your republic," he remarked to the Venetian
ambassador, "and began to punish those who take bribes,
I should soon not have a single subject left." He did indeed
dismiss Suffolk from the office of Lord Treasurer, and punish
him by fine and imprisonment for corruption. If he had
been consistent he would have sent nearly every official in
his service to jail. Almost every man in office had his price,
and bribery was the open secret of public life. Office was
sold to the highest bidder. There was a regular tariff for
peerages as for baronetcies. Any schemer without a true
sense of honour could buy this so-called " honour " for £10,000.
" The times allow anything to be done for money," wrote
Sherburn to Carleton. Sometimes the rich aspirant for
honour or office had to take in addition, as a wife, one of
Buckingham's poor relations. Patents and monopolies, against
which Parliament had revolted at the close of Elizabeth's
reign, had again become a widespread abuse and a lucrative
source of income to these unscrupulous fortune-seekers in

Corruption and Misgovernment. 63
high places. The patents or licenses for inns and alehouses
were, if properly regulated, a necessary guarantee of public
order and morality against the vice rampant in many of
these public haunts. In reality the patent for granting
licenses to inns, conferred on a commission, of which Sir
Giles Mompesson, one of Buckingham's relatives, was the chief
member, merely served to enrich a worthless swindler instead
of helping to fill the Exchequer. Another of Buckingham's
relatives, his own brother, Christopher Villiers, was the chief
gainer by the patent for alehouses. The same malpractices
vitiated the policy of granting monopolies, to which James,
with the object of encouraging commerce and invention as
well as filling the Exchequer, ^had recourse, in spite of the
anti-monopolist feeling of the beginning of his reign. Some
thing might be said for the policy in itself; the fact that it
was one more expedient for bringing grist to the mill of
greedy courtiers was sufficient to render it as unpopular in
1620 as it had been twenty years before.
It would have been nothing short of a miracle if such a
corrupt and incompetent Government as that of James had
now become, should pursue a wise or masterly course in
external affairs. It is not surprising, therefore, that, under
Buckingham's auspices, the friction between king and nation,
on the score of internal government, was intensified by angry
contention on the score of his foreign policy.
Under Salisbury's auspices his policy had been decidedly
anti-Spanish, -Protestant, and was thus in harmony with the
national spirit. He would fain, at his accession, have essayed
the „ task of assuaging the bellicose religious spirit which
dominated international politics, and professed himself an
advocate of Christian unity on terms of mutual restraint and
conciliation. But the current of inherited international anta
gonisms on religious grounds was too strong for the realisa
tion of his irenic theories, and for a decade after his accession
he co-operated with the anti-Spanish or Protestant powers
on the Continent. . In 1616, however, on the failure of his
scheme of marrying the Prince of Wales to a French princess,
he veered towards the idea of an approximation to the
Spanish court by marrying his son to the Infanta Maria, and
thus exercising a decisive pacific influence on the European

64 A Questionable Foreign Policy.
situation. He engaged in the negotiation in good faith, and
imagined that Philip of Spain was treating him seriously.
He believed in his own political wisdom in foreign as in
domestic policy. He imagined that with the magic wand of
this Spanish marriage he could conjure the evil genius of
dynastic ambitions and religious reaction that were threaten
ing the peace of Europe, and more particularly of Germany,
into submission to his will. His policy of keeping in check
the eruptive passions of Catholic and Protestant in Germany,
of preserving a balance in the interest of toleration and peace
by his diplomatic skill, would have been an enlightened one,
if it had been practicable. Unfortunately it was not practic
able. James was not the man for such a role, and in the
circumstances of Europe the role would have been too much
for a far abler statesman. With his fatuous belief in his own
cleverness and in the feasibility of his irenic policy, he allowed
his wily antagonist to amuse him with the project of this
Anglo-Spanish marriage alliance. Philip had suggested it as
a counterpoise to the Anglo-French scheme, and after its
failure he contrived to dangle it as a bait to the credulous
and opinionated James in order to keep him from actively
espousing the Protestant side in the conflict between Catholic
and Protestant that was brewing in Germany. Thus it came
to pass that the all-wise monarch of England looked san-
guinely on, whilst his son-in-law, the Elector of the Palati
nate, who had accepted the crown of Bohemia, was not only
being worsted in his new kingdom, but driven out of his
hereditary dominions by an imperial Spanish army. The
outbreak of what was to develop into a life and death struggle
between Catholic and Protestant in Germany thus found
England practically isolated and impotent, in spite of the
passionate partisanship of the English people. The grand
marriage scheme was merely meant as a soporific for the
English monarch, while the Habsburg-Spanish power was
engaged in subverting all that the Protestant spirit of Eng
land had struggled to preserve since the Armada.
The marriage scheme was naturally in itself unpopular in
England. To match the future King of England with a
Spanish princess was distasteful alike to the narrow religious
convictions and the intense national antagonism of the day, as

Antagonism of the Nation. 65
embodied in men like Raleigh, whose execution in 16 18 was
regarded as that of a martyr to the cause for which Drake
had fought. To sacrifice the Protestantism of Europe as well
as endanger that of England for such a mad project seemed
intolerable. Moreover, its conditions were all along too pre
posterous for any English Protestant, who was not blinded by
a self-assumed sagacity, to entertain. That James should
repeal by Act of Parliament all laws against Catholics was a
proposal that neither Parliament nor people would admit for
all the gold of the Spanish Indies. And it was in the effort
to come to an agreement on such propositions that James was
sacrificing the interests of his son-in-law as well as the German
Protestants, and chafing the temper of his subjects to fury.
To him might belong by prerogative the exclusive direction
of foreign policy as part of the Arcana Imperii, with which no
subject within or without Parliament might meddle. The
nation had only too good reason to conclude that he could
not be safely trusted with the exercise of even this part of the
prerogative, and under the influence of this widespread convic
tion, the Commons would certainly give expression to its
distrust on the very first opportunity.
During the fateful twelvemonth (1619-20) which witnessed
the election of James' son-in-law to the Bohemian crown, in
place of the deposed Ferdinand of Austria, and his expulsion
of the forces of his Catholic antagonist, the temper of the
English people became very bellicose. Even Buckingham in
a fit of enthusiasm, which indeed did not last long, joined the
war party, and Prince Charles was ardent in his sister's cause.
There was, however, ample justification for James' hesitation
to plunge into a war in support of an enterprise, of which he
disapproved from the beginning, and which was in reality
merely a desperate gamble on the part of his son-in-law.
Many of the German Protestant princes themselves were
against his acceptance of the Bohemian offer, and James was
the last man to sympathise with rebellion against constituted
authority, even with the palliation of religious persecution
and unconstitutional procedure on the part of the deposed
Ferdinand to recommend it. But it was one thing to refrain
from spending English blood and treasure in support of the
Elector's rash ambition, another to entangle himself in the
VOL. III. E

66 A Protestant Crisis.
meshes of Spanish diplomacy for the sake of a will-o'-the-wisp
project. The astute Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador,
skilfully played the card of mediation under James' auspices
in alliance with Spain, and lulled him into the fancy that by
cultivating that alliance he was really making himself master
of the situation. Whenever James gave way to the suspicion
that he was on the wrong track, and gave permission to raise
volunteers and contributions for the defence of the Palatinate,
Gondomar lied with such earnestness as to completely over
reach his dupe. Thus the fateful year waxed towards its
close, and while James parleyed with the lying diplomatist,
and grew more confident in his own wisdom, the bellicose
temper of the nation grew ever more poignant. In this matter
the nation judged more correctly than its king, though its
narrow religious partisanship was sadly lacking in enlighten
ment, compared with James' tolerant conceptions. It saw in
the Bohemian revolutionists the champions, in the Palatinate
the bulwark of Protestantism on the Continent, and it realised
that the transference of the Palatinate from a Protestant to a
Catholic ruler would be a blow to England as well as to
Germany and the Netherlands. Before the fateful year was
at an end, its worst fears were confirmed. Frederick was not
only driven from Bohemia as a fugitive to the Hague ; his
hereditary dominions were threatened by a Spanish army.
In this impasse even the wisest man in Christendom saw
nothing for it but to summon Parliament in order to shape
his course with its assistance, in accordance with the necessi
ties of the situation. Even yet, however, he was not prepared,
as Parliament was to discover, to throw over Gondomar and
withstand the evil genius that was tempting him into the
whirlpool. SOURCES. — Lords' Journals, ii. ; Commons' Journals, i. ;
State Papers (Domestic), 1611-18; Constitutional History, v.;
Cobbett's Parliamentary History, i. ; Coke's Reports, vol. vi.,
parts xii. and xiii.'; Cabala, sive Scrinia Sacra — Mysteries of
State and Government ; Winwood (one of James' Secretaries
of State), Memorials of Affairs of State (1725); Court and
Times of James I., edited by Birch (1849) ; Wilson, Life and
Reign of James I., in Kennet's Compleat History, vol. ii. ;

Sources' of Chapter IV. 67
Gardiner, History of England from the Accession of James L,
vol. ii. (1863), and Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage
(1617-23) (1869), and later editions under the title of History
of England ; Spedding, Bacon's Letters and Life, and Life
and Times of Bacon ; Carlyle, Historical Sketches of Notable
Persons and Events in the Reigns of James I. and Charles I.,
edited by A. Carlyle (1898); Lives of Eminent Persons,
Library of Useful Knowledge (1833), for sketch of Coke's
career. Two very useful short histories of James' reign have
appeared since my manuscript was finished in Mr Trevelyan's
England under the Stuarts (1904), and Mr Montague's volume
in The Political History of England, vol. vii. (1907).

CHAPTER V.
Renewal of the Conflict in the Parliament
of 162 1.
James met the new Parliament on the 30th January 1621.
It was a most formidable assembly to face. In the ranks of
the Commons were arrayed the ablest men in England. Some
of their names, like those of Coke, " the prime man of all," as
Chamberlain notes in his correspondence, Hakewill, Sandys,
were already historic. Those of Pym, Digges, Phelips, Sir
Thomas Wentworth were soon to become so. It is doubtful
whether we are entitled to add the name of Eliot to the roll
of its celebrities, though he had been a member of the Parlia
ment of 1614, and was to emerge into prominence in that
of 1623. The royal orator discoursed on this occasion, in much briefer
compass than usual, on religion, supply, and the miserable
state of Christendom. On the point of religion James would
fain have avoided the disagreeable necessity of persecution.
He preferred persuasion to compulsion, and would have liked
to be able to tolerate if only he were free to do so. In theory
his mind occupied a higher plane than that of the average
Protestant, and Parliament might have listened with edifica
tion to his remarks on this subject had the Catholic reaction
not been so threatening on the Continent. As it was, this part
of his speech could only appear tame and halting to men
whose intolerance that reaction had naturally enough quick
ened into fever heat. He would, he said, not compel men's
consciences, but leave them to the law of the land, which was
sufficiently rigorous. As to the Spanish match, they might
trust him to do nothing dishonourable ; his writings should
vouch for his past orthodoxy, for which he had suffered
martyrdom and torture " in the mouths of many idle fellows."
In regard to the question of supply, he laid stress on the

James' Speech to Parliament. 69
fact that he had preserved the country from war for eighteen
years, and that for ten years he had not received any parlia
mentary revenue. And — what was more likely to open the
purse of the Commons — he could adduce the fact that he had,
thanks to the financial ability of Sir Lionel Cranfield, greatly
reduced his personal as well as the public expenditure. He
would undertake, in conclusion, that " supply should not fall
into a bottomless purse."
In dealing with the international situation he recounted
the practical efforts he had made to help his son-in-law, though
he had acted rashly in pandering to rebellion under the cloak
of religion, and had accepted the Bohemian crown without his
consent. He pledged himself, however, to preserve his heredi
tary dominions for him, if necessary, by armed intervention.
" I declare that if by fair means I cannot get it, my crown and
honour and all shall be spent, with my son's blood also, but
I will get it for him." Let them, therefore, hasten supply.
Bis dat qui cito dat. He even expressed his willingness to
listen to grievances and grant reforms, though he warned
them " not to hunt after grievances to the prejudice of your
king and yourselves." " Deal with me as I deserve at your
hands ; I will leave nothing undone that becomes a just king,
if you deal with me accordingly."
This was eminently satisfactory at all events, and for once,
as the exponent and leader of a national policy, James struck
a note of deepest sympathy in the hearts of the Commons.
This was unquestionably the best speech he ever made. It
shows that in his better moments he had after all some claim
to be regarded as a statesman. It is, nevertheless, question
able whether he spoke in all sincerity of heart. The Spanish
ambassador, at all events, was able to report some days later to
his master that he had privately explained away his speech to
his satisfaction, and that he could still reckon on him as his
true friend.
The Commons showed their appreciation by resolving on
the 16th February to grant two subsidies, i.e., circa £160,000,
as a testimony of their goodwill. This sum might fall far
short of that required to render effective the policy of armed
intervention to which James had pledged himself, in case of
the failure of diplomatic arguments. But the keenly partisan

7° Popish Recusants and Free Speech.
spirit of the Commons might be trusted, if the king came to
blows with Philip, to supply the deficiency.
This spell of fair weather was of short duration. The
Commons, even with the utmost goodwill, soon discovered
that they could not in their reforming zeal avoid ruffling the
susceptibilities of the king. They petitioned the Lords for
a conference anent recusants, and indulged, during a debate,
in some wild denunciations of plotting Papists which must
have been very unpalatable to the ardent votary of the Spanish
marriage scheme.
In his reply on the 17th to the petition on this subject,
which both Houses joined in presenting, James strove to put a
bridle on this headlong zeal. He would not go beyond the
general assurances of his speech. There were laws enough
against recusants, and he was personally averse to the
coercion of conscience. Moreover, if he treated the English
Catholics with increased severity, how could he intervene on
behalf of persecuted Protestants in Catholic countries ? He
would, however, enforce the laws. Therewith the Commons
had to be content, and though James had the best of the
argument from the theoretic standpoint, he did not succeed
in convincing them that moderation was both more Christian
and more politic than excessive zeal. Rumour had it, in fact,
that the Commons were inclined to regret the haste with
which they had resolved to grant supply.
Whilst thus eager to persecute Papists, the Commons
were very zealous for liberty of speech for themselves. The
members had evidently not forgotten the arrest of the out
spoken opponents of arbitrary government at the close of last
Parliament, and were anxious to forestall similar attempts to
punish free speech in debate. Hence the appointment of a
committee which, after lengthy debate, presented a Bill on
the 15th February to insure immunity from arrest for words
uttered in their capacity as legislators. The debate touched
James in a vulnerable point, and he intervened with a message,
through Secretary Calvert, expressing surprise that they should
waste so much time on this matter. He had given his word
at the beginning of the session and meant what he said. The
Commons dropped the Bill in deference to this assurance.
They were certainly more credulous than their predecessors

Attack on Monopolists. 71
of 16 1 4 would have been, and before another year was out
some of them were to experience to their cost what the
pledged word of James trieant when his temper was roused
by opposition. Still, it would have been ungracious to dis
turb the harmony of this honeymoon between king and
Parliament by questioning his majesty's sincerity by further
debate. More ominous of friction was the demand for the con
sideration of grievances. James had professed his readiness
to acquiesce in any reasonable reforms and the Commons
accordingly lost no time in signalling out monopolies for
attack. But in attacking a system from which not only the
monopolists, but their patrons in high places, profited at the
expense of the commonweal, they were treading on delicate
ground. Not only those who granted, but some of those who
held these monopolies were royal officials, and to inquire into
the doings of royal officials looked like setting up an inquisi
tion into the king's administration. The claim on the part of
Parliament to call the royal ministers to account was no new
one, but it had long been out of date, and James was certain
to resist it as an encroachment on the prerogative. Despite
the danger of making shipwreck on the rock of prerogative,
the Commons determined to embark on a cruise against the
system and its abettors, both high and low. As usual, the
impulse came from the lawyers, and the greatest lawyer of the
day, the inapproachable Coke, who sat for Leskard, was there
to lead the charge of the lawmen. The merchants, who were
aggrieved by the privileges and restrictions which hampered
their trade, were equally keen for the fray. One of the keenest
of this class was Sir Lionel Cranfield, who, though he had arisen
by his financial ability to high place, hated the monopolists
as thoroughly on commercial, as Coke did on legal grounds.
There is, in fact, distinctly traceable in these debates a strong
feeling in favour of internal free trade for the common benefit,
and here once more economic principles made for the vindica
tion of great constitutional principles.
With such leaders in a cause which affected so many in
terests, the Commons set bravely to work. Day by day
added overwhelming evidence against the system of privi
lege and corruption as member after member rose to give

72 Startling Revelations.
the results of his experience or observation. Coke began
the general outcry by denouncing it as indefensible either
in law or execution. " Monopolies," he concluded, " are
now grown like Hydra's heads ; they grow up as fast as
they are cut off." No wonder that his speech evoked from
an admiring member !the exclamation, "This is the first
Parliament that ever I saw councillors of State have such
care of the State." This same member fell foul of the patent
for inns, which merely served as the nurse of oppression,
immorality, and corruption. In the hands of corrupt courtiers
like Sir Giles Mompesson, it only tended to aggravate the evil
it was meant to cure. Instead of lessening the number of
inns, such corrupt speculators filled their purses by selling
licenses by the score and thus frustrating the efforts of honest
justices of the peace to safeguard public order and morality.
Innkeepers who would not connive at their nefarious tactics
and pay the extortions of their agents were subjected to fines
on frivolous pretexts. Others enlarged on the iniquities of
the patent alehouse keepers and their patrons. Others in
veighed against the monopolies for making gold and silver
thread, as injurious to the produce of bullion and responsible
in part for the scarcity of money. Others denounced the
patent for concealment of lands by which said corrupt officials
cheated the king and vexed the subject, who had obtained
possession of crown land, by extorting fines.
These revelations worked the House into a fever-heat of
reform. It sent Sir Francis Michell, one of the worst of
these guilty officials, straightway to the Tower. It directed
a volley of searching questions on Sir Giles Mompesson, one
of its own members, as to his conduct as a Commissioner .
in connection with the patent for inns and concealment of
lands. Mompesson was terrified by the accumulating array
of damning facts with which he was confronted, into a con
fession of his guilt, and only saved himself from arrest by
flight across the Channel. It ultimately adopted Coke's and
Cranfield's suggestion to go further, and inquire into the
conduct of those responsible for the grant of these obnoxious
patents and monopolies. In other words, it resolved to bring
to reckoning, not only the officials and their agents and
accomplices who had participated in this nefarious traffic at

Buckingham in Danger. 73
the expense of the subject, but those by whose authority the
patents had been granted. These latter, to whom the ques
tion of granting or refusing these patents was referred, were
known as referees, and among them were Bacon, the Lord
Chancellor, and Montague, now Lord Mandeville, the Lord
Treasurer. Let the matter be probed to the bottom, cried
the angry Commons. To this end, they had recourse to the
usual device in grave emergencies. They requested a con
ference with the Lords for the purpose, not only of laying
the evidence against Mompesson and other delinquents before
them, but of instituting a joint investigation into the doings
of their patrons in high places.
James was very angry, Buckingham thoroughly frightened,
at the turn things were taking. Buckingham had reason to
tremble. The name of his brother, Sir Edward Villiers, was
mixed up with these shady transactions, and Yelverton, ex-
Attorney-General, and now a prisoner in the Tower, admitted
in examination by a committee of the Commons that he,
along with Bacon and Mandeville, had granted the monopoly
for gold and silver thread for fear of offending the favourite
and his brother. Buckingham felt the ground shaking under
him. If both Houses were not checked in their efforts to pry
into the secrets of administration, ministers might discover
that the doctrine of the responsibility of the king's advisers
to Parliament and the practice of impeachment, by no means
unknown to the English constitution, might be revived at
their expense. James determined to interfere, and rate the
presumptuous Commons into retreat, in spite of their profes
sions that they had been actuated by zeal for the king's
honour as well as the commonweal. He summoned them
to the Upper House on the ioth March, and angrily forbade
them to meddle with matters of government which concerned
him alone. He would plainly stand no parliamentary inter
ference within his province. Unabashed by this outburst, the
Commons went back to resume their examination of the doings
of the Chancellor, Treasurer, and ex- Attorney-General in pre
paration for a conference with the Lords to be held that after
noon. At this, James, who had lingered in the Upper House,
lost all sense of dignity as well as self-control. He swore at
large, and ordered the Lords to tell them to desist, and hurry on

74 Expedient for Saving Buckingham.
the Subsidy Bill. The Lords declined to interfere, and James
was fain to send his orders by the medium of the Attorney-
General. The Commons would, however, not desist. They
replied that " they would attend to both, and would despatch
the Subsidy Bill, even if they sat up till ten o'clock at night."
Before the united determination of Lords and Commons
James flinched. The monopoly scandal, trumpeted all over the
kingdom by Mompesson's flight, was too gross to be crushed
by a salvo of royal rhetoric. There really was no reason why
James should swear so volubly in order to protect a set of
scoundrels and swindlers, or why Buckingham, to save his own
skin, should not play the part of the incorruptible patriot.
Buckingham had the good fortune to have at his elbow at
this critical juncture an astute prompter in Williams, Dean of
Westminster. Williams urged him to join the hue and cry
against the corrupt monopoly vendors. " Swim with the
tide," exhorted the wily Dean, " and you cannot be drowned.
They will seek your favour to help them to settle the public
frame as they are contriving it. . . . But if you assist to break
up the Parliament, being now in pursuit of justice, only to
save some cormorants who have devoured that which must be
regorged, you will pluck up a sluice which will overwhelm
yourself. The king will find it a great disservice before one
year expire. The storm will gather and burst into a greater
tempest. . . . Cast all monopolies and patents into the Dead
Sea. . . . Damn all by one proclamation." Buckingham
eagerly caught at the expedient, and even James cooled
down sufficiently to appreciate the sagacity of the shrewd
divine, and shape his tactics accordingly. While he thanked
the Commons two days later for their zeal in respect of the
Subsidy Bill, and assured them that "he would be more ready
to help all just grievances than they to desire it," Bucking
ham rose in the Upper House to profess his devotion to the
commonweal and his deep sense of the wisdom of Parliament,
and to assure his listeners that if his father had begotten two
sons to be a discredit to their name, he had begotten another
to help in bringing them to punishment. The Commons,
on their part, rather pliantly waived further proceedings
against the referees, and contented themselves with carrying
on the prosecution of Mompesson, Michell, Yelverton, and

Punishment of the Guilty. 75
their subordinates in a number of conferences with the Lords,
and debating into shape a Bill against monopolies.
The chief delinquents were ultimately found guilty by the
Lords, and punished with severe penalties. Mompesson, as a
fugitive from justice, fared worst. He was degraded from
knighthood in absentia, outlawed, sentenced to imprisonment
for life, forfeiture of goods, and a fine of £10,000. Michell
was also degraded, imprisoned during the king's pleasure, and
fined £1,000. Yelverton, in spite of the bold charge of cor
ruption hurled against Buckingham, got off with fine and
imprisonment. James even remitted his sentence, and he
lived to become a Judge of the Common Pleas in the fol
lowing reign. Significant enough, the charges against the
favourite and his brothers, which Yelverton had refused to
recant, were ignored. Buckingham's dramatic declaration
that his father had begotten a son to punish his two brothers
was mere rhetoric. The favourite escaped by the royal
protection and his own audacity.
The Commons had resiled from their determination to
strike at higher delinquents in response to James' change of
tactics in giving them a free hand in dealing with the lower.
Their zeal in the pursuit of corrupt officials was, however, not
limited to the subject of monopolies. Coke and his fellow-
lawyers had their eye on the administration of justice, and
under the influence of the ex-Chief Justice the Commons had
appointed a committee to inquire into the abuses prevalent in
the law courts. On the 1 5th March the committee reported
a story of bribery communicated to it by two litigants in the
Court of Chancery, Aubrey and Egerton, which gravely com
promised the integrity of no less a person than the Lord
Chancellor himself. This report proved the preface to a
series of miserable revelations which blasted Bacon's reputa
tion as a judge, and amply justified the zeal of the Commons
against corruption and rascality in high places. Aubrey, it
appeared, declared that he had sent Bacon, through his
counsel, Sir G. Hastings, a Member of Parliament, a present
of £100 in order to obtain a verdict in his favour. The
Chancellor had pocketed the bribe, and yet he had failed
in his suit. Egerton's story was still more damning. The
Chancellor had not only accepted a basin and ewer worth

76 The Case against Bacon.
£52, but £400 in cash, likewise through the medium of
Sir George Hastings and another lawyer member, Sir
Richard Young, and had acknowledged his obligation to show
him in return " all lawful favour," adequate to the largeness
of the gift. Egerton, however, like Aubrey, had got nothing
for his money.
Such were the tales told by these two suitors who had
spent their money in vain and were keen for revenge. It was
sufficiently serious to be referred to the Lords. " The matter,"
said Sir R. Phelips in reporting the charges more in detail to
the House on the 17th, "is of grave consequence to all the
kingdom. If the springs are muddy, how shall the streams
be?" There is no reason for believing that the Commons,
in adopting this course, were actuated by animus against the
Lord Chancellor. Coke was no doubt an enemy, and Coke's
fellow-legislators were eager to follow up the scent against
Bacon as one of the obnoxious referees for granting mono
polies. They were perhaps prejudiced against him on this
account, but they could not, even if they had wished, ignore
explicit charges of corruption against the highest law officer
of the land. Their honour, urged Sir Edward Giles, as well
as that of the Chancellor, called for investigation. The com
monwealth, added Sir George Moore, is to be preferred before
the Lord Chancellor. This was the dominant note of the
debate in spite of some objections, and the House accordingly
directed Phelips to report the affair to the Lords "without
prejudice or opinion." It declined the offer of James of a
special commission, to consist of a dozen commoners and half
a dozen peers, to try the case. He might deplore the facts
contained in the report and promise to see justice done, but
special commissions were not to the taste of Coke, who re
minded his hearers that the House of Lords was the constitu
tional tribunal, and that the rights of Parliament would be
jeopardised by the royal proposal. A special commission
nominated by the king might indeed develop a precedent
detrimental to both justice and liberty. Luckily Coke's
instinct for constitutional form prevented James from em
ploying so questionable a device, and the inquiry and trial
proceeded in accordance with parliamentary usage.
Inquiry, unfortunately, only multiplied the charges against

He Waives his Defence. 77
the Chancellor, preferred either by disappointed suitors or
by the unscrupulous Churchill, Deputy Registrar of the Court
of Chancery. Lady Wharton, for instance, further reported
Phelips, had paid him £300 and had won her case against
three opponents who disputed her right to an estate. Of
such or similar charges there ultimately appeared twenty-
three in the indictment drawn up by the Lords.
The luckless Chancellor was stunned into illness by these
revelations. On the day after Phelips carried up the first of
them to the Lords, he was unable to rise from his bed, and
during the dark weeks when doom was hanging over his
head, his debility prevented him from once appearing at the
bar to face his accusers. He appealed to Buckingham to
come to the rescue ; but the arts of the favourite, who owed
much to his friendship and probably suggested a special com
mission as the most feasible expedient in the circumstances,
availed not against the shrewdness of a Coke. He next
urged the dissolution of Parliament, but James was too saga
cious to risk the odium of such a crack-brained device. Bacon,
in fact, erelong perceived the hopelessness of his situation as
the accusations thickened around him. Even if his memory
might fail him in thinking over the thousands of cases which
had passed through his hands in the course of the previous
four years, he knew that some at least of the charges were
only too true. It was this conviction, as well as the bodily
weakness that sapped his courage, which drove him to throw
up the attempt to defend himself and sue for mercy in " A
Humble Submission and Supplication to the Lords." He
began by professing his gladness that his example would
serve for a warning to judges, and thus prove a guarantee
against corruption. "It rests, therefore, that . . . having
understood the particulars of the charges, not formally from
the House, but enough to inform my conscience and memory ;
I find matter sufficient and full both to move me to desert
my defence and to move your lordships to condemn and
censure me." He concluded by craving indulgence for his
submission and asking his judges to limit his punishment to
the loss of his office and recommend him to the royal grace.
The Lords would, however, not be satisfied with such general
isations, and they took exception to his presumption in

78 His Confession.
venturing to suggest his own sentence. They must have a
specific answer to each of the charges, and sent him the in
dictment to this end. Their insistence gave him an oppor
tunity, almost in spite of himself, of showing that a number
of the sums which he had received from suitors were not
bribes, but fees or gratuities which, in accordance with the
practice of the time, he had accepted after judgment given.
The charge of corruption could not fairly attach to these
transactions, but the admission that, in at least half a dozen
of the instances cited, he had taken money before a decision,
conclusively proved that neither his memory nor his con
science had misled him into waiving his defence. Vindication
from the general charge of corruption was in truth impossible.
The document thus dragged from his reluctant pen is one of
the saddest ever written by a great man. It shows a syste
matic tendency to sell justice which would have been despic
able in a pettifogging lawyer, and is trebly repugnant in a
man of Bacon's intellectual eminence and exalted official
position. Moral aberration like this in such a man is a shock
to humanity. The only redeeming feature of a wretched
story of human peccability is the honesty with which the
great sinner at last faces the facts, and the penitent sincerity
that does not hesitate to confess the truth and pass judgment
on himself. " This declaration I have made unto your lord
ships with a sincere mind ; humbly craving that if there
should be any mistaking, your lordships would impute it to
want of memory and not to any desire of mine to obscure the
truth, or palliate anything ; for I do confess that in the points
charged against me, although they should be taken as myself
have declared them, there is a great deal of corruption and
neglect ; for which I am heajtily and penitently sorry, and
submit myself to the judgment, grace, and mercy of this
Court." .With this explicit statement the Lords professed satisfac
tion, but before petitioning the king for his deprivation and
passing sentence, they sent a committee to inquire whether
he adhered to it. " My lords," replied the broken man, " it
is my act, my hand, and my heart ; I beseech your lordships
to be merciful to a broken reed." His sentence was, never
theless, very severe. On the demand of the Speaker, who

Significance of his Trial. 79
appeared at the bar in the name of the Commons, on the 3rd
May, for judgment, the Lord Chief Justice declared that the
Lords had found the accused guilty, and accordingly sen
tenced him to a fine of £40,000 and imprisonment in the
Tower during the king's pleasure, and declared him incap
able of holding any office in the State or sitting in Parlia
ment. The shame of such a fall was, however, his hardest
punishment. He was only confined a few days in the Tower ;
his fine was as usual remitted, and he was left in peace to
seek distraction from the misery of his reflections in com
posing his " History of Henry VII."
The Great Seal, with the title of Lord Keeper and the
bishopric of Lincoln, was given to the Dean of Westminster
as the reward of the astuteness that, at a critical moment, had
saved Buckingham from a still more deserved inquisition.
The condemnation of Bacon is to us chiefly interesting as
a landmark in the history of the development of the influence
of Parliament. After a long interval the Commons revive the
precedent of impeachment. They accuse the highest official
of the crown of malpractices in the discharge of his judicial
functions. The Lords find him guilty of the charge of cor
ruption, and, as the result of their verdict, the king deprives
him of his office. He is indeed tried for a judicial, not for a
political offence. He is not arraigned for carrying out an
unpopular policy with the sanction of the monarch, and the
royal government is thus not arraigned in the person of the
accused minister. His trial is a question of justice, not of
policy, or parliamentary right, and it does not afford an illus
tration of the claim of the Commons to control the Govern
ment of the king through his ministers. The claim was,
however, erelong to be made, and the reforming temper of
the Commons must ultimately lead them to attack not merely
a high legal official like the Lord Chancellor for criminal mal
practices at the expense of individuals, but obnoxious ministers
who pursue a policy detrimental to the interests of the
commonwealth. James seems to have divined the trend of
this reforming zeal which might subject himself and his
ministers to an inquisition incompatible with his prerogative
as the sole arbiter of Government. He had tried in vain to
check it ; had rated the Commons for persisting in inquiring

80 Co-operation of Lords and Commons.
into the conduct of the referees ; had proposed a special com
mission nominated by himself for the trial of the Chancellor,
and in a speech to the assembled Houses on the 20th April
had warned them off the ground of prerogative. His efforts
to hamper inquiry had been baulked by the united strength
of Lords and Commons. The Lords had at last shaken off
subservience to the court, and shown an unmistakable
tendency to rebel against the omnipotent favourite. In spite
of momentary friction with the Lower House over the per
secution of Floyd, whom the Commons too hastily arraigned
for a libel against the Princess Palatine, the two Houses co
operated heartily in all measures deemed necessary for the
common good. Even James' brand new peers, with Bucking
ham at their head, could not prevent the majority from doing
what they deemed their duty to the nation in alliance with
the nation's direct representatives. And this union in the
pursuit of a reforming policy might ultimately serve larger
ends than the punishment of corrupt officials. It might in
the long run result in the reassertion of old constitutional
claims, was in fact to prove fatal to James' high dogma of
prerogative, though there was no question of prerogative in
their crusade against abuses in high places. In the meantime
it served to show him the utility of Parliament in supervising,
if not controlling administration as well as merely voting
supplies and debating Bills. It had brought to light his own
remissness as supreme director of the Government, if not his
personal maladministration. Despite his oft-repeated self-
laudation as a model king, his reiterated anxiety to govern in
accordance with justice, his complacent appeal to facts, his
administration had been weighed in the balance and found in
some respects grievously wanting. His boasted capacity to
be all and direct all in the State had received a tacit rebuff
from these proceedings of Lords and Commons against evil
doers in high places whose rascality had thriven' so luxuriantly
under his all-wise auspices. They had practically shown that
he was the dupe of his vanity and his fancies. He was, in fact,
fain to confess the deception, if not the vanity, of which he had
been the victim. In a speech to the Lords on adjourning
Parliament on the 26th March he told them that he had been
miserably deceived by the outward aspect of things, and that

The Commons and Foreign Policy. 8i
the glaring abuses in administration unearthed by Parliament
had been a sorrowful revelation to him.
Before the session was at an end, James was to be startled
by the explicit assertion of those large constitutional claims
towards which the reforming zeal of Parliament was surely
tending. Neither the dexterity of the favourite nor the self-
restraint of the Commons was capable of permanently con
juring a rupture. It was, however, in the domain of foreign
policy, not of internal administration, that the storm burst.
The Commons were, if possible, more interested in the fate
of the Palatinate than in the crusade against domestic cor
ruption. They were evidently not satisfied with the steps
taken by James to carry out the professions of Protestant
partisanship which had secured him two subsidies almost
without debate. He had, indeed, fulfilled his promise to
Parliament so far as to negotiate for a satisfactory agreement
between his son-in-law and his antagonist. Throughout the
winter and far into the summer of 1621 his ambassadors were
exerting themselves to this end. Diplomacy made little head
way, unfortunately. Not only were the difficulties of the
situation many ; James, with his Spanophile leanings and his
fits of hesitation, was not the man to lessen them by steady
pushfulness. The Commons, whom he did not take into his
confidence in this supreme matter, were suspicious, and were
determined to vote no further supply to support mere negotia
tion. They would gladly pay for a definite, incisive policy,
but the fury into which they lashed themselves against the
luckless Floyd, who had presumed to joke at the fugitive
King of Bohemia's expense, absurd and tyrannic as it was,
plainly demonstrated that they would not be trifled with on
this subject. To avoid a collision meanwhile, James resolved
to adjourn Parliament a second time. In spite of strenuous
opposition, adjourned it accordingly was on the 4th June till
the 14th November. Before dispersing, the Commons did
what lay in their power to voice the sympathy of the English
people for their coreligionists in Germany, and to show to all
the world that the blame did not lie with them if that cause
should be ruined by devious courses. They drew up a de
claration in which they urged the king to expedite the negotia
tions for a satisfactory treaty, and pledged their lives and
VOL. III. F

82 James Continues to Negotiate.
fortunes to assist him to vindicate the Protestant cause by the
sword, if peaceable means should fail. There is a grand ring
of high toned principle in it, even if it was to some extent the
outcome of passion as well as principle. It showed decisively
that its authors were in dead earnest in this business, and that
if James refused to go in the path on which they would fain
compel him, he would have to reckon with an opposition
which would not shrink from asserting itself at the expense of
the royal prerogative, even in the domain of foreign affairs.
James, indeed, adhered on paper to his demand for the
restoration of the Palatinate to his son-in-law. Both the
emperor and the King of Spain must stay their hands at this
limit, or incur the enmity of England and its king. He
believed that he could prevent them from crossing this limit
by negotiation, but in cherishing this belief he was destined
to find himself the victim of self-deception. The fact was that
negotiation, without a strong army to back it, was as good as
useless. Ferdinand and his ally, the Spanish king, now
Philip IV., might negotiate, but something more than argu
ment, couched in very serious language at times, it might be,
was needed to prevent them from taking full advantage of their
success. The surest way to retain the Palatinate for his son
was to show unmistakably that he would fight for it, with all
the Protestant enthusiasm of England at his back. Instead of
going to the Commons with this decisive policy and thereby
opening the strings of the national purse in its support, he had
adjourned Parliament for six months, and thus virtually con
veyed to the emperor and the Spanish king the intimation
that they might do as they pleased during that period. In
his superior wisdom he was merely playing into the hands of
the enemy by his lack of courage and insight. Christian of
Denmark gauged the situation more truly. " By God," said
he to James' ambassador, "this business is gone too far to
think it can be redressed by words only."
True, that situation was beset with difficulties. Frederick
still harboured the thought of regaining his lost crown, and
his lack of moderation even in his adversity played into the
hands of his enemy and complicated the case for his father-in-
law. The Protestant Union fell in pieces, and its disruption
plainly showed that Protestant Germany would not lose a

Failure of his Policy. 83
man to help Protestant Bohemia against its imperial head.
Mansfeld was still in the field on the Bohemian border, with
intent to win back his master's lost kingdom, and thus draw
his sword through the finely spun web of James' diplomacy.
Even if Ferdinand had been willing to come to terms with
a man who still had his heart set on the Bohemian crown —
and both he and Philip IV. hesitated throughout the summer
of 162 1 to press matters to extremities — Maximilian of
Bavaria was determined to have the Palatinate as the reward
of his services to the Catholic cause, and would not hear of
peace short of this condition. Such a situation would have
strained the resources of even a master-hand in statecraft,
and the diplomacy of James, who still allowed himself to be
hoodwinked by the Spanish marriage scheme and shrank
from a strong, independent policy, proved helpless to avert
the blow which England dreaded. In September Maximilian
conquered the Upper Palatinate, and Ferdinand, while con
tinuing to negotiate, secretly gratified his ambition by making
him a present of the Elector's territory. The Elector was
himself as much to blame as his father-in-law for the course
things were taking. He had shown himself unreasonable and
shifty, and had not heartily seconded James' efforts for an
agreement with Ferdinand, who might have refrained from
gifting away his dominions, if he would have been content to
be Elector again and nothing more. Frederick had Bohemia
on the brain, and felt himself bound to keep faith with the
Bohemian Protestants. In straining at too much, he lost all.
Maximilian was threatening the Lower Palatinate, and Mans
feld and Vere would soon be hard put to it to save what
remained of the Elector's territory. In November James
reiterated his demand for restitution, and summoned the
adjourned Houses once more.
To the Commons Lord Digby, James' ambassador to the
emperor, recounted his unsuccessful labours to bring about a
satisfactory agreement. His failure made it imperative that
they should vote an immediate supply to maintain the forces
of Mansfeld and Vere throughout the winter. A very large
additional sum would be necessary to send an army to their
assistance in the spring. The demand gave rise to a long
and hot debate, which was prefaced by complaints of the

84 Commons Denounce his Policy.
royal encroachment on the privilege of free speech and free
dom from arrest, as illustrated by the imprisonment of Sir
Edwin Sandys during the recess. Secretary Calvert ultimately
succeeded in pacifying the House by the assertion that Sandys
had not been imprisoned for anything said or done in Parlia
ment. His hearers were somewhat sceptical, but they accepted
the declaration as at least formally sufficient, and had it recorded
in their Journal. He had a far more difficult task in striving
to make headway with supply against the torrent of excited
speeches which swelled onwards for several days. The more
ardent Protestant orators seized the occasion to condemn the
king's truckling to Spain, and to demand a complete breach
with the hereditary foe of Protestantism both in England and
on the Continent. Digges, Perrott, Phelips, Crewe, Pym, Coke
successively rose to denounce the Spanish entente as detri
mental to the highest interests of the country. They refused
to believe the friendly protestations of the Spanish king, and
demanded not merely the rupture of the marriage scheme,
but war to the knife against the protagonists of the Jesuits and
the pope. They would not give even the supply immediately
asked, unless James would strike at the arch enemy of Protes
tantism at Madrid, as well as at Vienna and Munich. They
may not have gauged the policy of the Spanish monarch aright
— they did not know the undercurrent of foreign affairs that led
Philip IV. to doubt the expediency of engaging in a great
war — but they were not far wrong in seeing a menace to
Protestantism at home and abroad in any divergence, at such
an emergency, on the part of their sovereign, from a decisively
Protestant attitude. Some of their utterances were, however,
not in the best of taste, and were fitted to give keen offence
to James. Coke's anti-Spanish zeal carried him the length of
indulging in downright vituperation. "The first scab that
came among our sheep," thundered he, " was brought hither
by one out of Spain ; and every one knows that Morbus
Gallicus (the plague) came first from Naples, which is one of
the King of Spain's dominions." This from an ex-Lord Chief
Justice was execrable rhetoric, but the very fact that Coke
could utter words like these in the House of Commons is a
plain index both of the red-hot antagonisms of the hour and
of the fatuity of James' Spanophile policy. Prince Charles

Their Petition Angers James. 85
would evidently never become the husband of the Infanta
Maria with the goodwill of England, and James, in wasting
years of negotiation to this end, had rasped the national temper,
and had thus done his best to provoke opposition to the exer
cise of his prerogative, even in a matter in which he could brook
no intrusion. Against this outburst Calvert, Cranfield, Sir
Thomas Wentworth, Sackville adduced the necessity of immedi
ate action in support of the Palatinate, and in response to their
arguments the majority ultimately resolved to grant the sum
provisionally demanded. But they resolved at the same time
to debate a petition on religion for presentation to the king.
This petition, as finally debated into shape, not only denounced
popery, recusants, and their foreign abettors ; it gave pointed
expression to the national aversion to the Spanish match,
called on the king to marry the prince to a Protestant, and
exhorted him to make war on the King of Spain. It was very
respectful in tone, and contained a clause expressly disclaim
ing any wish on the part of its authors to interfere with the
prerogative in this matter. But it implied the condemnation of
the royal policy. James, who had received a copy of it, would
not have been the man he was, if he had not keenly resented
such an implication. That the Commons should presume to
question his wisdom in the direction of high affairs of State
was intolerable audacity. He was further stung by Gondo-
mar's vehement protestations against the vilification of his
master and his religion. He was ill at Newmarket, and unable
to appear in person to rate them for their presumption, and
he at once (without waiting for its formal presentation) gave
vent to his anger in a peremptory letter to the Speaker, pro
hibiting the House from " meddling with anything concerning
our government or mysteries of State," claiming the right to
call any member to account for his conduct in Parliament,
and threatening beforehand that if their petition should touch
on such matters, he would neither receive nor answer it.
It was now the turn of the Commons to be angry. They
tried to keep their temper, and express themselves with
dignity. Phelips and his fellow-orators appealed from " this
soul-killing letter " once more to the right of free speech and
to precedent to prove that they had not outrun their right to
deal with high matters of State. Had they not debated the

86 They Assert their Rights.
question of the Union without let or hindrance from his majesty?
Had their predecessors not discussed the question of the
succession in Elizabeth's reign? Had not Edward III. ad
mitted the right of the Commons to discuss such matters as
treaties of peace ? Their zeal for the commonweal, in accord
ance with such precedents, deserved better at their sovereign's
hands. There must surely, cried Seymour, be traitors in
their midst who had traduced their honour and endangered
their rights by their private misrepresentations, and they must
defend their honour and their rights. The outcome of the
debate was, accordingly, the appointment of a commission to
draw up a second petition, explanatory of the first, in which
they prayed the king not to give ear to private reports of
malicious persons, substantially repeated the contents of the
first, and reminded him of their undoubted privileges and
rights as a free representative assembly (6th December). " Bring
stools for the ambassadors," was the facetious sally with which
James greeted the deputies who carried the document to
Newmarket. There was insight as well as humour in the
royal hilarity. The deputies of the Commons did not come
as suppliants, but as men who had rights to defend.
To this petition there came a long answer on the 14th,
reprobating more at length their meddlesomeness, denying
categorically their right to do so, and denouncing this assump
tion as an usurpation of the royal authority, comparable to
that of the pope over kings, or that of " the Puritan ministers
of Scotland," who sought to enslave the State under pretext
of spiritual independence. In matters of foreign policy they
were virtually told that they were mere simpletons. The war
in Bohemia had not arisen out of a question of religion at all,
but from an act of usurpation on the part of his son-in-law,
which could only compromise the Protestant religion in the
eyes of its enemies. Let them not wrong the Jesuits so far as
to rob them of the credit of such doctrines. Moreover, in their
ignorance they had insulted the King of Spain, and mis
interpreted his policy, and their ignorance and prejudice
totally unfitted them to deal with questions of peace or war.
As to the maintenance of religion, he would never be weary in
doing his duty in this respect, though they must remit " the
manner and form to his care and providence." They need

They Resist the Royal Tactics. 87
not fear for their privileges " as long as they contained them
selves within the limits of their duty." Let them not forget,
however, that their privileges were not, as they claimed, by
" ancient and undoubted right and inheritance," but " by the
grace and permission of our ancestors and us."
In spite of the offensive tone of this epistle, the Commons
professed satisfaction with the royal version of foreign affairs,
which indeed was a needed counterpoise to their own ; but
they were determined not to accept James' interpretation of
their' rights and privileges without an unequivocal protest.
" Our liberties," said Sir George Moore, " are our freehold, and
the fairest flower that groweth in the garden of the Commons ;
if they be once nipped they will never grow again." To pre
vent this, let the House go into committee to consider expedi
ents. Speaker after speaker — even moderates like Sir T.
Wentworth and Sackville — rose to support the motion, and in
the face of the unanimity of the House, James saw that he
had made a mistake. He attempted to intervene in the
debates of the committee, with a letter of explanation to
Secretary Calvert. He had, he insisted, no intention of
denying them any lawful privileges, neither those to which they
had an undoubted right, nor those which his ancestors had in
grace permitted them. The House refused to be put off with
these generalities, and continued the debate. Again James
broke in (1 8th December) — this time with a letter to the Speaker
— exhorting them to go on with the business if they wished the
session to end by Christmas. He would even waive the
subsidy (which had not been passed in the form of a Bill) if
they would desist from raising further the question of privi
leges. The device failed. The Commons thanked him for
his letter, but replied that they would prefer an adjournment
to a prorogation, in order to give them sufficient time for the
discussion of Bills before them, and went on with the debate.
It culminated in the late afternoon of that very day in the
memorable Protestation in which they placed on record their
rights as a free representative assembly. In language too
positive for misconstruction, they claimed that the liberties and
privileges of Parliaments "are the ancient and undoubted
birthright and inheritance" of the English people, that all
important affairs of State, as well as the making and main-

88 Their Protestation.
tenance of laws and the redress of grievances, are " proper
subjects and matter of counsel and debate in Parliament,"
that, in treating of such matters, the members have the right to
free speech, and immunity from arrest and imprisonment or
molestation, other than the censure of the House, for any
thing they may have uttered in debate, and that if any com
plaint is preferred against a member it shall be done in full
Parliament, and not by private information to the king.
These claims were not new. They had been made spas
modically during the last twenty years. They had been
raised by the more advanced champions of liberty in Eliza
beth's reign, and they might be traced in the parliamentary
records back to the era when the Lords rather than the
Commons stood in the foreground as the defenders of the
power of Parliament. The Commons had now gained the
first place, and if they were to hold it, or indeed exert any
appreciable influence as legislators, they must cling to the
rights which the past had bequeathed, and the present rendered
so necessary. They were extremely moderate ; anything but
revolutionary ; but, moderate as they were, highly important.
This crisp, pregnant Protestation arrayed, as in a phalanx,
facts against assumptions, parliamentary right against abso
lute government. It was incompatible with the absolutism
which James took every opportunity of emphasising, and
preached at times in such an offensive style. He is hereby
plainly told that he must stop short at constitutional liberties,
and if he will not, the Commons will stop him, not merely by
the appeal from despotism to liberty, but by the appeal from
assumption to fact. They will not be threatened or cajoled
into the loss of their birthright. James' system of govern
ment, in theory and practice alike, must square with the facts
of the parliamentary constitution. He, and not Parliament,
must beat a retreat. England will never submit to become a
second France or Spain.
James realised the alternative, and did not hesitate to take
up the challenge. He would have been a far wiser man than he
was if he had hesitated to do so. On the 30th December in the
presence of the Council, he ordered the Clerk of the Commons'
to produce his Journal, and with his own hands tore out the
obnoxious Protestation as an infringement of his prerogative.

Sources of Chapter V. 89
He further showed his contempt by sending Coke, Phelips, and
Mallory to the Tower, ordering Pym to confine himself to his
house, and virtually banishing Digges, Crewe, Perrott, and
Rich by sending them to serve on a commission in Ireland.
A week later he gave free vent to his indignation by dis
solving Parliament.
Sources. — Lords' Journals, vol. iii. ; Commons' Journals,
vol. i. ; Proceedings and Debates of the Commons in 1621 —
Notes by a Contemporary (Clarendon Press) ; Cobbett's
Parliamentary History, vol. i., in which these Notes are in
corporated ; Notes of Debates in the House of Lords, taken
by H. Elsing, Clerk of the Parliament, 1621, edited by
Gardiner for the Camden Society; State Papers, 1619-1623 ;
Statutes at Large, vol. iii.; Bishop Hacket, Memorials of John
Williams, Lord Keeper and (subsequently) Archbishop of
York, part i. (1693). Hacket's statements require testing.
Wilson, Life and Reign of James I. ; Court and Times of
James I. ; Gardiner, Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage
(1869), and in later editions of History of England;
Spedding, Bacon's Letters and Life, and Life and Times of
Bacon.

CHAPTER VI.
Last Years of James' Reign — Its Significance.
James might attempt to play the master over Parliament.
But, in dissolving Parliament, he lost all chance of playing the
master on the Continent. He embarked once more on a
course of arbitrary government in the form of benevolences
and impositions, for the purpose of raising funds, and only
succeeded in intensifying the general irritation without ob
taining much more than the amount of a single subsidy.
This irritation found vent in the press, or in refusals to pay
what were really arbitrary taxes. Abroad negotiation had
given place to blows, and the blows were falling thick and
fast on James' son-in-law. In the spring of 1622 the
Palatinate was fast slipping out of the hands of Mansfeld,
the Margrave of Baden, and Christian of Anhalt into those
of the redoubtable Tilly. Before the summer was over, it
was irretrievably lost, while James had been aimlessly floating
on the tide of his own irresolution. There was nothing for
Mansfeld and his vandal army but to escape to Holland. James
was the most unpopular man in England. Puritan teachers
persisted in passionately denouncing his Spanophile policy,
even if some of them went to the gatehouse for their boldness.
And, what was more important, the Puritan cause but derived
new strength from the haphazard policy which was endanger
ing Protestantism for the sake of a purpose of marriage, odious
enough in itself, doubly odious in Puritan eyes as treachery to
Protestantism. Puritanism made crowds of adherents among
men who would otherwise have been content to let the old
party shibboleths fall into oblivion. When James carried
his Spanish predilections to the length of liberating Catholic
recusants from prison, as he did in August 1622, these
Puritans were beside themselves with disgust and apprehen
sion. It might be a merciful act from the theoretic point of

Antagonism between King and People. 91
view. From the practical standpoint it was madness. It
might be impossible to have a Spanish marriage without this
tribute to toleration, but to pay this tribute was to outrage
the dominant religious prejudice of the day. Imagine the
King of Spain releasing Protestant recusants within his
dominions instead of making auto-da-fe's of them ! Catholic
recusants were not burned in England. They were only fined
and imprisoned. And to open the prison door and set them
free seemed as great an act of anarchy in Protestant England
as the refusal to burn Protestant heretics would have appeared
in Catholic Spain. And all this temporising for what ? That
Prince Charles might marry Maria and secure a solid dowry
in Spanish gold. Even this miserable climax proved ulti
mately beyond the range of possibility. James might
champion a policy which, though it ran counter to the
narrow religious prejudice of the day, might be defensible
on theoretic grounds, but he did so in a paltry spirit of
calculation, and his championship deserved to fail.
Fail it did at last. Prince Charles could not possibly
become the husband of the Infanta as long as the Inquisition
gave law in matters religious to Spain. Even his personal
wooing of Maria at Madrid, with madcap Buckingham to
back it, could not bridge the gulf between the would-be
heretic bridegroom and the impossible Catholic bride.
Charles returned a wiser, if a sadder man, and the Spanish
match, to the joy of England, if to the chagrin of James,
was finally relegated to the limbo of exploded infatuations.
In this deplorable contingency the only remedy lay once
more in the convocation of Parliament. This expedient
found warm adherents in Charles and Buckingham, who were
smarting under the rebuff they had experienced in Spain, and
were now the moving spirits of the war party. In response
to the royal summons, a new Parliament accordingly con
vened on the 19th February 1624. The royal speech
showed ample traces of the bitter experiences of the inter
vening two years. In it James appears as a new man,
and the aspect of the new man is wholly favourable. Dis
appointment, failure, illness, had evidently humbled him into
the kindliest and most conciliatory frame of mind. He had
at last been taught humility as well as sense in the school of

92 Renewed Appeal to Parliament.
adversity. Hence the absence of that tone of bounce and
complacent superiority which had unfortunately characterised
too many of his utterances. He confessed that he had
allowed himself to be deceived into a waste of hopeless
negotiation instead of acting a manful, independent part ;
had, as he put it, been "walking in a mist." He even
admitted that he sorely needed their counsel, and prayed
them to give it freely. He was, moreover, studiously anxious
to remove the bad impression which his hasty action had left
on the former Parliament, and, in his anxiety to eschew
friction, he would be neither " curious nor captious." " Never
man in a dry and sandy desert, where no water is, did thirst
more in hot weather for drink than I do now for a happy
conclusion of this Parliament." Only, let them, reciprocating
this spirit, beware of wasting time on " curious questions," and
" remember that spending of time is spoiling of business."
The speech was a virtual confession of the failure of the
personal government which James had emphasised so often
within and without Parliament. The man who believed
himself capable of ruling a great nation by his own wisdom
and by divine right had been taught by stern facts that he
had failed, and was forced to turn in his dilemma for a remedy
to the very body which he had told so offensively shortly
before not to interfere in his royal concerns. It was for the
Lords and Commons to redress the blunders which, for years
past, in spite of ample warnings, he had committed. He had
to thank the fact that these blunders had not succeeded in
alienating, though they had shaken the loyalty of the people,
that there was still hope of redress by the strenuous action
of Parliament. To this end both Houses listened to the long relation
which Buckingham submitted, on the 24th February, of the
events of the previous twelvemonth, more particularly in
connection with the match. Buckingham was now, next to
James himself, the most popular man in England. He stood
before the assembled Houses as the embodiment of a national
policy, and the story he told, if not above criticism, appealed
to the religious principles, as well as the patriotism, of his
audience. Their judgment was a foregone conclusion. The
only remedy, they concluded, after mature conference, lay in

James' Concessions. 93
a complete rupture with Spain. " The treaties, both for the
marriage and the' Palatinate," they informed the king on the
5th March, " cannot any longer be continued with the honour
of your majesty, the safety of your people, the welfare of your
children and posterity, as also the assurance of your ancient
allies and confederates."
In his reply James was even more effusively compliant
than in his speech. He would gladly do as they counselled
him. He was loth to go to war, but if it must be, he left it to
them to furnish the means. His impecuniosity was such that
he had barely enough to live on, and he submitted to their
loyalty and discretion the task of inquiring into the state of
the nation, and relieve him from the weight of debt that was
threatening to crush him in his old age. Nay, they should
have absolute control over the sums voted for the conduct of
the war, and should even have a voice in the conclusion of
peace. As the result of the debates in both Houses on this com
munication, the Lords and Commons united on the 14th in
presenting an assurance that, on the rupture of the treaties,
they were ready to assist him to their utmost " in a parlia
mentary way." In reply to . this unequivocal deliverance,
James hesitated to commit himself irrevocably to a war with
Spain. He had not, he reminded them, come to a decision
on the question, had not given an official opinion on Buck
ingham's relation, and he must first consult with his friends
and allies. While he was evidently more eager for the restora
tion of the Palatinate than for a breach with Spain, and
was prepared to throw himself heartily into the struggle in
Germany for this purpose, Parliament, on the contrary, was
less eager to draw the sword on behalf of Frederick than to
throw down the gauntlet to Philip IV. In any case a large
grant would be necessary, and James estimated the sum at
five subsidies and ten fifteenths. At the same time he begged
them to add one subsidy and two fifteenths for the disburse
ment of his debts. He had, he concluded, almost, but not
quite, made up his mind to denounce the treaties.
His hesitation did not please his hearers, but Charles and
Buckingham speedily succeeded in overcoming it, and on the
strength of their assurances the Commons voted three sub-

94 Appreciation of the Nation.
sidies and three fifteenths as a provisional grant, to be levied
within one year after the declaration of the rupture of the
treaties, and to be spent by a parliamentary committee, and
undertook to increase it if further assistance should become
necessary. Ruptured the treaties were, accordingly, on the
23rd in a Royal Declaration to both Houses. The political
nightmare of seven years was thereby at an end, and the
capital gave joyous vent to its relief in the bonfires which
blazed in every street and in the showers of stones which the
mob hurled at the windows of the Spanish embassy. Exactly
against whom the war was to be directed, James did not say.
He was determined to have the Palatinate, but they must
leave operations in the hands of himself and his Council of
War. " Whether I shall send 20,000 or 10,000, whether by
sea or land, east or west, by diversion (against the Spaniards),
or otherwise, by invasion upon the Bavarian, or the emperor,
you must leave that to your king."
For the present the Commons were ready to bow to the
royal wisdom. At that moment James was the hero of an
enthusiastic nation, the leader of an unanimous Parliament.
It had taken him twenty-one years of misgovernment to win
the national confidence by abjuring his errors, and submitting
at last to do the national will. Had he been as wise as he
took himself to be, he would have made it his business to
occupy this happy position from the outset. His petulance,
his self-will, his tactlessness, his arbitrary ways were forgotten
in the consciousness of the fact that he was ready to follow
whither Parliament might lead. He was both a happier man
and a greater king for his docility. " Though I have broken
the necks of three Parliaments one after another, I hope that
in this Parliament you shall be so resolved of the sincerity
of my heart and I of your duties and affections that this
shall be a happy Parliament, and make me greater and
happier than any king of England ever was."
The small number of English Catholics had certainly no
reason to rejoice over the turn things had taken. The Com
mons not only inveighed against the Spanish enemy ; they
raised the old hue and cry against recusants. The efforts
of James to secure a larger measure of toleration had defeated
themselves. He had placed himself in the eyes of the country

Persecution of Catholics. 95
in the invidious position of championing what was in itself, to
some extent, a wise policy of toleration at the dictate of a
foreign potentate, and this foreign potentate the traditional
foe of English religion and liberty. His policy had been
hopelessly discredited, but it had exploded the mine of
religious passion that James had hoped to extinguish, and
the explosion was disastrous to the English adherents of the
Spaniard's religion. Both Lords and Commons joined in a
petition praying that the laws against Jesuits and seminary
priests in particular, and against all popish recusants in
general, might be rigorously enforced, and that these laws
might not be slackened by any future treaty of marriage, or
otherwise {apropos of the new project of marriage between
Prince Charles and Henrietta Maria, the sister of Louis XIII.).
Even to this aggressive petition James was no longer in a
position or a humour to say " no." He gave a substantial
assent, though he felt and expressed a vague conviction that
it was both wrong and impolitic to persecute systematically
in the cause of religion. " I have," he faintly protested, " been
free from persecution, for I have ever thought that no way
more increased any religion than persecution, according to
the saying, ' Sanguis martyrum est semen ecclesia? " One
should like to be able to add that the Lords and Commons
appreciated this disclaimer of persecution — at least on theoretic
grounds. Unfortunately, neither on theoretic nor on practical
grounds could the plea of toleration expect serious considera
tion. Apart from religious principle and passion, patriotism
made it impossible in the circumstances to be merciful to
Jesuits and seminary priests, and Englishmen who rated their
faith in such plotters higher than their duty to their country
could not expect much consideration for their convictions.
Unfortunately, Parliament, in the heat of ardent patriotism
and religious passion, failed to discriminate between political
plotters and honest Catholics.
In the course of their inquisition into the state of the
nation, the Commons discovered serious irregularities in the
Lord Treasurer's department. The Treasury was now under
the direction of Cranfield, who had been raised to the peerage
under the title of Earl of Middlesex, and the discovery must
have come with a shock to many of his old colleagues of the

96 Impeachment of Middlesex.
Lower House. There is reason to suspect that the initiation
of the accusation of malversation was due to the resentment
of Charles and Buckingham at the Treasurer's opposition, on
financial grounds, to the policy of hurrying on a war with Spain.
Buckingham and Charles, at all events, threw themselves with
ardour into the prosecution, and the Commons found the evi
dence sufficiently grave to warrant them in deputing Coke and
Sandys to accuse him before the Lords of corruption and
extortion. Further investigation by committees of both Houses only
amplified the charges against him. " Parliaments," said Coke,
" work wonderful things."
Middlesex adopted a very different tone from that of
Bacon in his answers to the Lords. He denied that he had
received bribes from the farmers of the customs, or that he had
been guilty of extortion as Master of the Court of Wards.
Despite these disclaimers, the Lords summoned him to their
bar to stand his trial on the charges preferred by the
Commons, " as general inquisitors of the grievances of the
kingdom," on the 7th May. His zeal in reforming abuses and
curtailing expenditure had earned him the goodwill of the
king. James had no liking for this parliamentary inquisition
into the conduct of his ministers, and was nervous as to the
political bearing of the revival of impeachment. It exposed
the prerogative to the risk of further limitation by the device
of attacking the Government in the persons of ministers. He
made no attempt, however, to intervene between the Commons
and the Treasurer, though he exhorted the Lords to remember
that " all treasurers, if they do good service to their masters,
must be generally hated." The moment of his trial was too
inopportune to secure him the benefit of this reminder. The
reforming mood of the Commons demanded its victims what
ever their past record, and with the most potent influences at
court against him, his general record for effective service availed
him nothing. There was apparently sufficient truth in the
charges to make strict scrutiny into every transaction very
risky, and the Attorney-General pressed them with such in
sistence for several days that the Lords found him guilty on
the 13th May, and consigned him to the fate that had over
taken Bacon three years before. His sentence was almost

James' Last Speech. 97
identical. He was deprived of the treasurership, incapaci
tated from holding any office in the State, imprisoned in the
Tower during the king's pleasure, fined £50,000, and debarred
from ever again sitting in Parliament.
Buckingham and the prince were jubilant. They had had
their revenge, and that was all the significance they saw in the-
episode. James was more keen-sighted. He saw in the
growing self-assertion of Parliament the danger to personal
government, and he told Buckingham that he was a fool and
was making a rod for his own back. " You will soon have your
bellyful of impeachments," added he to his son gloomily. The
alliance between Charles and the Commons was certainly
destined to be short-lived.
James was, in fact, growing ill at ease, and was eager to be
rid of the embarrassment of this parliamentary activity. The
Commons had been heaping up Bills for the amendment of
grievances which they desired him to pass, and he consented
to add a considerable number of Acts to the statute book after
a blank of fourteen years. Among these the Monopoly Bill
at last found a place, but the Bill against recusants failed to
receive the royal assent. These manifold fruits of their in
dustry were, in truth, not so readily appreciated as the subsidy
with which they were accompanied. On presenting them on
the 28th May James acknowledged their generosity with more
than ordinary heartiness. But he fell into a scolding tone
towards the end of his speech over their zeal in pestering him
with grievances. When on the morrow he prorogued Parlia
ment and the Commons made their final withdrawal from the
presence of the monarch, whose last parliamentary speech this
was destined to be, the old feeling of friction and strain was
unfortunately present once more on both sides to rasp their
last parting. " The parting," notes that observant scribe, John
Chamberlain, to his friend Carleton, " was with no more con
tentment than needed on either side."
James had only a few months more to live. He had
become prematurely old and feeble at fifty-six. During these
months the marriage of his son and the recovery of the Pala
tinate still engaged his relaxing energies. He lived to witness
the initiation of both these projects. Baulked in his suit for
the Spanish match, he fell back, under Buckingham's auspices,
VOL. III. 9

98 Gloomy Circumstances of His Death.
on tne old project of a French one. The union of Charles and
Henrietta Maria was ultimately arranged on terms which guar
anteed the relaxation of the persecution of the bride's English
co-religionists. It was the basis of an alliance against Spain,
and James might cherish the hope that he had at last thereby
paved the way for the realisation of the other grand project
— the restitution of the Palatinate. He did not live to dis
cover that he was once more the victim of a melancholy de
lusion. It was his misfortune that since the day he had
elected to waste his energies in fruitless negotiations, instead
of wooing opportunity by action, all his combinations had
proved mere air-bubbles. He did live to experience the
bitterness of the collapse of his efforts to launch the alliance
by the expedition to Holland in support of Mansfeld. He
had blundered through the latter half of his reign. The
crowning blunder came at its close when he allowed himself
to spend English money and waste the lives of English troops
in a hopeless venture under a hopeless general. The expedi
tion to Holland proved a deplorable failure, and under the
shadow of this failure James went to his last account.
It cannot be said, in spite of all the flatteries of the hour,
that a great man and a great ruler disappeared from the
world when James VI. of Scotland and I. of England died.
We might easily deceive ourselves into this belief if we judged
his character from the utterances of his courtiers, or even from
the speeches in which the House of Commons directed their
Speaker to address him on formal occasions. The courtiers
were for the most part hirelings and sycophants ; the Com
mons were using the language which conventional etiquette
demanded. James was not the great man, nor the great
ruler he imagined himself to be. Nevertheless, he was by no
means the sorry figure that historians have usually painted.
He had, unfortunately, the faculty of making himself ridiculous
in the eyes of posterity, and he has accordingly had more than
his share of ridicule. His ungainly figure has been a favourite
mark for the shafts of wits and stylists. His fondness for a
dram has quickened their hilarity, and his proneness to rough
jesting has turned the laugh against himself, as a man whose
jokes were at times neither very pithy nor in the best of
taste. His perpetual harping on his royal rights, especially

Character of James. 99
his divine rights, has presented him in the character of a bore
who never knew when to hold his tongue, and, consequently,
systematically roused irritation and challenged opposition.
In spite of his habitual good nature, he was choleric and
crotchety, and to touch his weaknesses was instantly to set
his temper in a blaze. On such occasions he could indulge
in cutting declamation without stint, and scold with all the
bitterness of a shrew. Such foibles have tended to obscure
the good sides of him. Yet he had many qualities which
might honour a king. He could be shrewd enough, though
he allowed himself to be easily duped, was often extremely
ready and cogent in argument, could reason dexterously with
the keenest intellects of the day, had very considerable learn
ing and no small humour, was a fluent orator, could sometimes
make a really sensible speech, rose to some extent above the
prejudices of his time, if not above his own, was fertile in
ideas if he could not translate them into action. His advo
cacy of toleration as far as it went (and it did not unfortun
ately go the length of embracing the Puritans) was admirable,
his profession of devotion to duty unexceptionable. His
dislike of war, his striving to bring reason rather than the
sword to bear on international contentions deserved well of
his age. With all his foibles and his egotism, the impression
is borne in on us that he really meant well and tried to do
well. He really hated oppression, tyranny, and meant to make
the nation prosperous and happy. He deserved, as far as his
intentions were concerned, to have reaped success instead of
failure. And yet he could hardly avoid, hardly help, we may
say, being a failure on the throne. He did not know himself
sufficiently well to guard against his own weaknesses. His
own excellence, as ruler and man, despite occasional fits of self-
depreciation, was a deeply engrained conviction. If he speaks,
wisdom must flow as from the lips of Solomon himself. His
sense of superiority to all men naturally led him to cherish
those high notions of his office which he dunned into the ears
of his generation as if it were a revelation from heaven, to be
accepted as implicitly as the Gospel itself. This fatuous self-
worship, which betrayed him into an implicit trust in his
own theories, made it impossible for him to succeed as king
in such an age. What the successor of Elizabeth (and that

ioo Genesis of the Great Conflict.
successor a Scotsman) needed in the highest degree was the
spirit of self-restraint, compromise. To that spirit James
was an utter stranger. He was the very man to provoke
friction at a time when the genius of conflict was in the air.
He not only failed to know himself; he failed completely to
understand his age. He exaggerated the Tudor tendency
to play the master at a time when the spirit of reaction was
brooding over the land. He cherished the belief that every
thing depended on the monarch when the spirit of independ
ence had begun to stir in the nation. To fit himself into this
situation was a task beyond his powers, and thus he only
succeeded in intensifying the jealousy between crown and
Parliament. In this fact lies the chief significance of his reign. It
forms the prologue to the tragedy of that of his son, the
skirmish before the great constitutional battle which raged at
its fiercest during the quarter of a century that followed his
death and only finished with the century itself. For the out
break of this conflict James was largely responsible. It was
he that gave the impulse that made the century politically
what it was. To the demand of the Commons for constitu
tional government he replied by emphasising his prerogative
and his divine right. The Commons were ready in theory to
admit both to a certain extent. They admitted in a general
way that kingship was of God, and that James derived from
his crown certain rights with which they might not interfere.
Practically, however, they ascribed a different meaning to
these things from that which James strove to read into them.
They refused to believe in the personal absolutism which he
would fain have derived from his prerogative and his divine
right. Against these claims they as strenuously emphasised
law and constitution. They only knew of a limited constitu
tional monarchy which the Tudors might practically ignore,
but which the Lancastrians and the later Plantagenets had
been compelled to recognise. Hence the genesis of the great
quarrel of the century. The Commons began by defending
their parliamentary rights. Their watchword was liberty as
expressed in freedom of election, freedom of speech, freedom
from arrest, freedom of jurisdiction. They reiterated their
watchword with increasing assertiveness all through the reign,

Development of Power of Parliament. 101
and they were as touchy on the score of their privileges, as
James was on the score of his prerogative. With each suc
cessive Parliament their jealousy of the crown became keener,
and with it their self-assertion waxed stronger. They ven
tured with increasing boldness within the domain of the
prerogative and questioned the right of the king to impose
arbitrary taxes, disregarded the dictum of the judges in
favour of the king's right thus to impose, forced their anta
gonists to curtail its exercise, if not altogether to waive it.
They protested against the arbitrary imprisonment of mem
bers and compelled the king to invent excuses for his conduct,
which safeguarded at least their contention on this head.
Anon they were bold enough to call corrupt officials of State
to account, to impeach even a Lord Chancellor and a Lord
Treasurer, and thus assert their right " as the general inquisi
tors of the State." Nay, they formulated the demand to
direct, by discussion and advice at least, its general policy, and
ended by squeezing its recognition out of a reluctant king.
More significant still, they gradually pressed the Lords out of
their position of subservience to the court into one of co-opera
tion with them in the work of reform. Against this union of
their forces James at last appeared absolutely helpless. His
maladroit attempt to ignore or override Parliament, his incapa
city in the direction of both internal administration and foreign
policy, contributed to this extraordinary development of the
power of Parliament. The Commons in particular had felt
their strength, had closed their ranks into an effective
phalanx for opposition and even aggression, and had thus
become at the close of the reign a far more formidable body
than they were at its commencement.
To their dogged activity England owes much. There can
be no doubt that James made the experiment, both furtively
and openly, of establishing a personal absolutism in the land.
Despite all his professions of respect for the law, he constantly
assumed that, as king by divine right, he might alter or over
ride the law without consent of Parliament. He disliked the
Parliament in England as he disliked the Assembly in Scot
land, and in private gave expression to the hope that he might
one day be able to rid himself of its interference. In his view
Parliament only existed on sufferance. What this theory

102 A Barrier to Absolute Government.
achieved in France and Spain, contemporary history amply
shows. The States General were being practically ignored
by James' absolutist contemporaries, were summoned only in
an emergency to rescue the monarch from an insuperable
difficulty. So it would have been in England, had not the
Commons made their decided stand against that absolutism
which was making such headway abroad. Parliament was
the only remaining bulwark of freedom, for James, like his
brother potentates of France and Spain, was supreme over
the Church, and the censorship made him master of the press
as well as the pulpit. He might have no standing army, but
the standing army would have come in due time if the
Commons had given way. The Commons were not organised
for parliamentary government as we understand it, but they
knew what they wanted, and were united in the determination
to get it. Immortal honour be decreed them, therefore, as
the staunch defenders of the citadel of political liberty.
Let us, nevertheless, beware of exaggeration, be careful to
discriminate. Let us not complacently assume that the
Commons were always in the right, James necessarily in the
wrong. He was at times the champion of a wise, a liberal
policy against their narrowness and prejudice. Narrow and
prejudiced they were in no small measure. They had the
word " liberty " constantly on their lips ; they did not always
understand its true meaning. James would fain have shielded
Catholic recusants from undue persecution. The Commons,
in their patriotic and religious zeal, thirsted for the most rigor
ous repression in the interest not merely of patriotism, but of
religious narrowness. James was at times serving the higher
interests of humanity as well as the dictates of what he con
sidered good policy. Hating the Puritans with an undying
rancour as he did, he would never have let loose a Laud on
them, as did his intolerant son. He was too shrewd to
patronise such a zealot, even though he shared his anti-Puritan
bias. The Commons, further, were staunchly Puritan, especially
in the latter days of the negotiation with Spain, but in their
Puritan fervour they were inclined to infringe that liberty of
speech which they rated so highly for themselves. During
the session of 1621 they expelled a member, Mr Shepherd,

Criticism of the Commons' Attitude. 103
for boldly opposing their demand for a stricter observance of
the Sabbath, and maintaining that what they termed the
Sabbath was really Saturday. Nor had they any adequate
conception of progress. They championed political power
for Parliament as against the king. Most of them would have
scouted the idea of giving any measure of political power to
the lower classes, whose concession only an interval of two
and a half centuries was to witness. If the people in the
larger sense had demanded a share of the privileges which
their legislators rated so highly for themselves, these legis
lators would have invoked the name of liberty in defence of
class, traditional rights. They certainly did not understand
liberty, whether political or religious, in a liberal sense. Eliot,
for instance, while declaiming on liberty in Parliament, made
no scruple of pressing men for service in the navy in his
capacity as Vice- Admiral.
They were, too, the slaves as well as the champions of law.
They were not progressive in this respect. It is a singular
fact that the struggle between king and Commons was thus
far actuated largely by a conservative spirit. They did indeed
on one occasion show a tendency to question the royal pre-,
tension on grounds of reason as well as law, but in general
they contented themselves with an appeal to the past. It was
from the constitution as it was that they sought their inspira
tion ; hence the ever-recurring demand for precedents, the
tendency to look up the law books at every step. It was the
legal element that directed the opposition to James, and
the lawyers, as a rule, are not the men to champion liberty in
the larger sense, the liberty that law and precedent may
strangle rather than nurture. Coke and many of his fellow-
lawyers would have felt themselves in purgatory in a modern
parliamentary assembly.
And on a review of general policy it would be possible on
general grounds to make out a strong case in favour of James
against the Commons. Their opposition to his unionist
policy, for instance, was narrow and selfish. Bacon, though
so subservient to the exercise of the prerogative, was far in
advance of his fellow-legislators on this question. Their
failure to appreciate his larger views of toleration shows equal
obtuseness and smallness. Their Puritan zeal was not always

104 Sources of Chapter VI.
in accord with knowledge or common-sense. It may be said
for them, however, that the age made such appreciation
difficult, and that some of James' larger schemes laboured,
in the circumstances, under the drawback of being risky
to the commonwealth.
The opposition to James was, too, it must be remembered,
partly the outcome of national or personal prejudice. The
jealousy of the old peers, for example, drove them into ill-
humour with a king who was so lavish of titular distinctions
to Scotsmen. Had this ill-humour been solely the expression
of disgust at the disgraceful traffic in these so-called "honours,"
it would deserve unqualified respect. It was, unfortunately,
actuated at times by petty touchiness in the matter of pre
cedence, especially if the titled parvenu were a Scotsman.
Some of these noble lords of ancient lineage were in truth not
slow to profit by this base traffic which they affected to
despise. SOURCES. — ^Same as for the preceding chapter for the
most part, with the addition of Elsing's Notes of the Debates
in the House of Lords in 1624, edited by Gardiner for the
Camden Society (1879), and State Papers, 1623-25. D'Israeli,
in his Inquiry into the Literary and Political Career of
James I. (1816), is a staunch champion of the king, but his
championship is wanting in discrimination, and is as one-sided
in its judgments as the criticisms of his opponents, whom the
writer attacks so vigorously.

CHAPTER VII.
Friction between Charles I. and his First
Two Parliaments (1625-1626).
PERSONALLY, Charles had not the qualities that go to make
up a national hero, though the nation had not as yet dis
covered the fact. He presented a marked contrast to his
brother Henry, whose death in 161 2 had been mourned as
a national calamity, and who combined with his father's
frankness a manly energy and an ardent sympathy with
the best instincts of his time. Charles, on the contrary, was
incapable of captivating the national imagination. He was
virtuous and devout, serious and thoughtful, dignified and self-
restrained. But he had none of his brother's dash, still less of
his father's kindly effusiveness. His mind worked slowly,
was lacking in that quickness of perception, that readiness
in retort that distinguished that of both his father and his
grandmother. His inability to think vigorously, to express
himself fluently, doubtless nurtured that tendency to reserve,
taciturnity which must have seemed so strange to the genera
tion that had grown accustomed to his father's volubility.
Though he had taken an active part in the deliberations of
the Upper House during the session of 1624, he was not in
his element in addressing a parliamentary assembly: — declared
himself, in fact, " unfit for much speaking," in his first speech
to Parliament, and intimated his intention to revive the old
practice of communicating with the Houses through the
Lord Keeper. To his listeners this must have been a wel
come announcement, for James had bored rather than
interested them by his loquacity. But this diffidence,
coupled as it was with an habitual reserve, did not tend to
bring him out of himself into the current of public life, and
lessened the chance, small enough as it was, of his being able
to enter into, understand the forces, the aspirations at work

106 Personality of Charles I.
in the nation. What was needed now, as during his father's
reign, was a man to lead the nation in the path on which
its destiny was carrying it. Charles could not lead, because
he could not understand the nation, and if he attempted to
drive it, he must come to ultimate grief. And drive it he
would, in spite of its unmistakable tendency to kick over
the traces. He might be diffident, reserved in speech, but
he had his deeply rooted convictions, the faculty of assuming
that he was right and everybody else wrong, in the face of
contradiction, opposition. He would persist in doing his
will, come what might, by dissimulation, if direct effort failed.
It remained to be seen whether he was a strong enough ruler
to mould or drive the nation into compliance with his narrow
notions of kingship.
Unfortunately for him, difficulty dogged him from the
outset. The marriage treaty with France bound him to
tolerate recusants, and on the day on which he was married
by proxy at Notre Dame he directed the Lord Keeper to
stay all prosecutions against Roman Catholics, subject to the
stipulation "that they behave themselves modestly therein,
and yield us that obedience which good and true subjects
owe unto their king." The order, as qualified by the stipula
tion, was eminently humane and reasonable. There was
no motive, except religious prejudice, for persecuting loyal
Papists. Unhappily, however, all Roman Catholics were not
loyal Papists in the English acceptation of the words, and it
was very unlikely that Jesuits and seminary priests at least
would refrain from political intrigue to the detriment of
Protestantism, both at home and abroad. The battle be
tween the two creeds was still raging over a large part of
Europe, and Jesuits would not have been Jesuits if they had
not taken their fair share in the strife. The concession to
Catholics, however reasonable in itself, could not but give
offence to the English people. To the more intolerant
Puritans, it was an offence against religion as well as
patriotism. To the more moderate Protestants who, like
Eliot, were not narrow Puritans, but ardent patriots, with
certain Puritan sympathies, it was highly dangerous to
the commonwealth. Both were mistaken in infringing,
for political or even religious reasons, the rights of the

Collision with Parliament Inevitable. 107
Catholic conscience, and they ought to have been content
to try the experiment of trusting to such a reservation as
Charles stipulated. But the spirit of the age and the actual
antagonisms which the struggle on the Continent had
aroused, made it difficult, in the eyes of Englishmen, to
dispense with what we recognise as unjust, persecuting laws
in favour of even, a carefully guarded toleration. Collision
between people and king on this head was, therefore, inevi
table. Charles had, in fact, bound himself to a domestic
policy which was certain to estrange Parliament. Nor could
he in return count on that active alliance on the part of
France which might, in the circumstances, have made the
alliance palatable to the nation. Despite Buckingham's
feverish efforts, the marriage treaty led to no whole-hearted
co-operation in the great cause on which the national mind
was bent. Buckingham might get the fleet ready and subsi
dise Christian of Denmark and Mansfeld ; France showed no
readiness to strike in and help to make Buckingham the
saviour of Protestant Europe, even with the co-operation
of English ships against the rebellious Huguenots to induce it.
Moreover, Buckingham's war programme had far out
stepped that of the Commons. What they had clamoured
for was a war against Spain. The recovery of the Palatinate
now occupied a secondary place in their thoughts, and though
they had undertaken to assist the allies of James, the miser
able failure of the expedition to Holland had only increased
their dislike of expensive complications in Germany. But
such complications formed a cardinal part of Buckingham's
policy, and Charles had come under heavy obligations to
both Mansfeld and Christian of Denmark. The sum of
£50,000 a month represented these obligations in cash, and
to this lavish expenditure it was almost certain that the
Commons would not commit themselves.
With the best intentions to maintain harmony, Charles
could not well help collision with the Parliament which met
on the 18th June 1625. The Commons, with men like Eliot,
Pym, Phelips, Coke, Sandys to lead them once more, were
eager to continue the crusade begun in the last year of his
father's reign, but it was speedily evident that Charles must
agree to carry it out on their terms, if he expected their

108 King and Commons.
speedy and hearty support. That support, it was soon
apparent, would be neither hearty nor speedy unless their
intolerant zeal was satisfied. It was in vain that he reminded
both Houses, in his short speech, that they were responsible
for the foreign policy on which his father had embarked,
and bound to maintain it with all the expedition possible.
Equally vain the attempt to brush aside the doubts as to
his Protestant zeal, which "some malicious men" had
whispered, by the assurance of his determination to uphold
the faith in which he had been brought up "at Gamaliel's
feet." The emphasis which the Lord Keeper, who followed,
laid on supply was not more convincing. The Speaker, Sir
Thomas Crewe, on presenting himself to his majesty on his
election, struck the dominant note when he expressed the
hope that the king would " maintain true religion and the
ancient laws," at the same time that he exhorted him to draw
the sword for the recovery of the Palatinate, " and not suffer
those locusts, the Jesuits, to eat up the fruits of this land."
The Commons, at Coke's suggestion, waived, indeed, the
consideration of grievances, and contented themselves with a
request for an answer to the petition presented to the late
king. They made an exception, however, in the case of
religion, and debated into shape a petition against recusants.
They could hardly have done anything more embarrassing
to the monarch, to whose domestic peace, as well as
his treaty engagements, the petition must have seemed a
terrible bugbear. The embarrassment was increased by the
debate on supply, which ended in the offer of two pitiful
subsidies. Two subsidies must have looked like an insult
to Charles' allies as well as to himself. To subsidise these
allies, and carry out his share in the operations besides, little
short of a dozen subsidies were requisite, and now Charles
was asked to accept a paltry £140,000. He had, however,
himself largely to blame, for he had only indulged in
generalities about the war, and had not submitted a state
ment of the expenditure of the former grant, or the precise
objects which' a fresh one was to serve. Without such
definite information, and in view of the failure of the expedi
tion to Holland, the majority of the Commons, as voiced by
Phelips, held that they were not justified in voting more.

Contention over Supply and Policy. 109
Moreover, they disclaimed responsibility for the war policy
of Charles and Buckingham, though their consistency in so
doing, in view of the terms in which the grant was made, is
not above question. They might argue that they were not
bound to homologate all that their predecessors had done,
but the old leaders who had urged James into war were there
to guide them once more. These leaders had undertaken to
support James' allies as well as James himself in the war
policy, and Charles' payments to Christian and Mansfeld
already represented more than one subsidy was worth. They
might, however, reasonably urge that they had never contem
plated such a large expenditure, and that they had not been
consulted as to the French marriage treaty and the exten
sive military schemes on which Charles, under Buckingham's
auspices, had embarked.
Still worse, they would only grant tonnage and poundage
for one year, and not, in accordance with custom, for the
king's life. This certainly looked niggardly and mean, and
might well appear to Charles as a personal affront. But the
Commons had discovered that tonnage and poundage was
made a pretext to cover certain exactions (pretermitted
customs as they were called), whose legality was questionable,
and they still had the old score of impositions to settle. Till
these questions were disposed of, the grant should, therefore,
be limited to one year.
Their parsimony made things desperate for Charles and
Buckingham. It threatened to thwart all the combinations
and calculations of the previous year. The skeleton House,
whose members had fled in scores from the plague-stricken
capital, nevertheless stood firm against the appeal of Buck
ingham's emissary, Sir John Coke, for a larger grant (8th
July). The appeal was accompanied by an explanation of
the king's obligations to his allies, but the remnant of the
Commons did not feel justified in committing themselves in
the absence of their fellow-members, and Charles was forced
on the nth July to adjourn it, in the meantime, thus empty-
handed, to a safer environment at Oxford. At the same time
he gave a verbal promise that the laws against recusants should
be enforced. On the fourth day after their assembly at Oxford, he

no Renewed Contention at Oxford.
appeared before both Houses in the hall of Christ Church,
and made for the second time a personal appeal to the gener
osity of the Commons. He again reminded his hearers of
their obligation to support a war which had been undertaken
by advice of Parliament, informed them that the two subsidies
recently granted had been more than consumed beforehand,
urged a further immediate supply, and intimated that an
account of expenditure would be laid before them. Lord
Conway and Sir John Coke accordingly repeated, with some
amplification, the statement made before the adjournment of
the remnant of the Commons. With this statement the
Commons were by no means satisfied. Buckingham, they
felt, had entered on a course which was as rash as it must
prove costly. In the two days' debate that followed on the
5 th and 6th August, their dissatisfaction found ample expres
sion, and to make matters worse, the question of religion and
other grievances entered as usual into competition with that
of supply. Sir Simon Weston, for instance, asked who the
enemy was against whom they were to furnish the sinews of
war. Seymour inquired whether some of the ships fitted out
with the subsidies already given had not been used against the
Protestants of La Rochelle, and whether the king had as wise
counsellors as had Queen Elizabeth ? Phelips was still more
pungent. The French match had been as great a failure as
the Spanish one, and in spite of these lavish subsidies to
foreigners, nothing had been achieved in Germany. Reform
within was more clamant than rash ventures abroad. " In the
Government there hath wanted good advice. Counsells and
power have been monopolised. There have been more assaults
upon the liberties of the people, more pressures within these
seven or eight years than in divers ages. . . . Let us looke
into the estate and Government, and finding that which is
amiss, make this Parliament the reformer of the common-
wealthe." Coke, who followed, confined himself to animad
versions on the leakage of the revenue for the benefit of
fraudulent officials, pension-holders, sinecurists, &c, but Alford
roundly declared that Parliament was not committed to the
recovery of the Palatinate, and was consequently under no
obligation to subsidise Charles' German allies.
On the other side, Sir Richard Weston, Chancellor of the

Buckingham Explains. in
Exchequer, and Sir Robert Heath, Attorney-General, appealed
to necessity. The interest of the country as well as the king's
honour was at stake. " It is not the king's necessity, it is the
kingdome's," said Heath ; " whatsoever he suffers in his honour
or otherwise will light on us." " There never was a time,"
urged Weston, "wherein there should not be rumours of
jealousy betwixt the king and the people." Their appeals were
not without effect in bringing the House into a more tract
able mind. At all events the orators were less querulous on
the following day (6th August). Eliot, indeed, attacked the
rash war policy of Buckingham, but he and most of his fellow-
orators were ready to give further supply if the king would
take the advice of wise counsellors, declare the enemy against
whom it was to be used, and give an explicit guarantee on the
score of religion and impositions.
Charles and Buckingham felt that they must endeavour to
secure the confidence of the Commons. On the 9th August
Buckingham accordingly appeared before both Houses to give,
by royal command, a full answer to the petition on religion
presented before the adjournment, and to the questions of
foreign policy and expenditure raised during the debate.
The answer to the petition was as explicit as the most exacting
Protestant could wish. Charles, it was evident, had decided
to leave the Catholics to their fate in spite of the marriage
treaty. In regard to foreign policy the duke laboured to
show that in all he had done he had merely carried out the
mandate given by Parliament to the late king. The situation
on the Continent had, he contended, thanks to his exertions,
greatly changed for the better. In every step he had acted in
unison with the Privy Council and the Council of War. He
had, moreover, contributed a large sum out of his own purse
to get the fleet in readiness, and with further supply to com
plete its equipment it would not fail to go in search of the
enemy. . As to the enemy in question the king had com
manded him to bid them name the enemy themselves, and
assure them that they should not find him slack in maintain
ing the war. The plunder of Spanish treasure ships should
more than repay the expense of fitting out the fleet. Nor need
they have any apprehension on the score of the French
marriage. The king's answer to their petition was a

H2 The Commons still Distrustful.
sufficient guarantee that no Papist should defy the law with
impunity. This statement seemed sufficiently explicit and reassuring.
It wanted only one thing to make it conclusive in the eyes of
Buckingham's listeners. That one thing was confidence in
the speaker himself. Many of his audience were not convinced
that matters stood exactly as Buckingham stated them, or
that he had acted in all his negotiations and undertakings by
the "advice of counsellors in whom they could trust. The
question was, in fact, not merely one of supply on the strength
of a declared policy, but one of confidence in a certain minister
who had risen by the favour of James, and not by his own
merit, and to whom Charles continued the most implicit
trust. That this was the real issue at stake appeared in the course
of further debate, during the next three days, on the question
of supply, for which Charles sent a pressing appeal on the loth
through the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the fleet was to
achieve anything at all, urged the king, it must start at once.
Further delay would be fatal, owing to the lateness of the
season. Move it could not without a grant. One after
another of Buckingham's supporters rose to urge compliance
on a variety of grounds. Their appeals and arguments were
equally futile. Nothing would induce the House to waive its
distrust in the king's all-powerful mentor, and to this distrust
Phelips once more gave pointed expression. If they allowed
the country to be led by one man, they would be courting
slavery as well as disaster. Let them take warning from the
precedents in their own history, the examples of other countries.
" We are the last monarchy in Christendome that retayne our
original rights and constitutions." Let them not endanger
them by a too ready compliance on the pretext of necessity.
If the necessity be so great, then those who have brought the
king into such straits must bear the blame and rely on their
own counsels to extricate him. Let Sir Robert Mansell, a
member of the Council of War as well as of the House, declare
whether Buckingham's statement that he had acted in accord
ance with the advice of his fellow-counsellors was in accord
with fact or not.
Mansell strengthened the impression produced by these

Angry Outburst against Buckingham. 113
speeches by rising at a later stage to say that he had not been
allowed to express a free opinion on the resolutions adopted
in the Council of War. To this the Solicitor-General ulti
mately retorted that Sir Robert had taken offence because his
pet scheme had not been accepted, and offered to produce
Lords Brooke and Grandison, two other members of the
Council, to corroborate Buckingham's declaration. Mansell
admitted that he had personal reasons for disliking Bucking
ham, who had done him an injury, but he stuck to his
contention that the duke had carried it with a high hand in
the Council, and was the real keeper of the king's will. The
growing animus against the favourite was heightened by the
communication of information as to the outrages on English
traders by Flemish, French, arid even Moorish pirates, who
infested the Channel or the North Sea. Some of these
vessels had been captured almost within sight of Land's End,
and, in one case, in view of the king's ships, and their crews
tortured, starved, or burned. Instantly the House was in a
blaze. What was the Lord High Admiral there for, asked
the angry orators, if he could not protect the lieges at sea ?
Buckingham, it was replied, had given directions to proceed
against the pirates. "The king's ships do nothing," cried
Glanville, " but go up and down, feasting in every good port."
" Let us lay the fault where it is," wrathfully burst out Sey
mour ; " the Duke of Buckingham is touched, and it must
needs be either in him or his agents." " It is not fit," roundly
declared Phelips, " to repose the safety of the kingdom upon
those that have not parts answerable to their places."
This scene did not bring the prospect of supply any nearer,
and Charles determined to prevent further risk to his favour
ite's reputation by dissolving Parliament. The Commons had
only time to draw up a hurried declaration protesting their
loyalty, and their readiness to reform abuses and grant assist
ance to the king " in a parliamentary way," and praying his
majesty to account all who would impugn their devotion as
slanderers and enemies of the commonwealth, when Black
Rod knocked at the door to summon them to the Lords'
House to hear the message of dissolution (12th August).
These debates of the Parliament thus summarily dissolved
are of capital importance from their bearing on the ensuing
VOL. III. H

114 The Grand Question at Issue.
conflict between crown and Commons. The conflict had, in
truth, already begun. Within three months of the beginning
of his reign Charles was brought face to face with one of the
grand controversies which was to lead to such a tragic closing.
It is not the question of supply, so crucial to him at the
moment, that renders this Parliament so memorable. The
Commons might be right or wrong in refusing to gratify the
king with so small a sum as an additional £40,000. They
might, and indeed would, have given this pittance without
demur had there not been a far larger question at stake. The
grant of this comparatively small sum would have been a
vote of confidence in Buckingham, a mark of acquiescence in
his right as well as his power to direct the policy of the
country. This claim the Commons refused to recognise, and
they pitted against it the right not merely to demand an
account of his conduct, but to say whether it was for the
interest of the country or not. The minister, they virtually
protested, must possess the confidence of Parliament as well
as of the king, and if he failed to retain this confidence, he must
give way and allow the voice of Parliament to shape the policy
of the Government and to deprive obnoxious ministers of
their offices.
The responsibility of ministers to Parliament is clearly
implied, if not expressed in some of these speeches. It was
no new doctrine, for the Commons could and did appeal to
ancient precedent in support of their right to call ministers
to account for their misdeeds. Phelips, in fact, bade them
remember the Duke of Suffolk, and Eliot in a speech which
the learned Cott&n drew up for him, but which he does not
seem to have delivered, ransacked the records of Parliament
to illustrate the claim from the fate of Gaveston, Despenser,
Wickham, and others in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth
centuries. Until this doctrine was practically admitted by
the king, he must submit to the refusal of supply. Whether
Buckingham was worthy of all the suspicion and criticism of his
opponents is open to question. He may so far be allowed
the merit of doing what he sincerely believed to be the best
for the country. The important thing to note is that the
majority of the Commons evidently did not think so, and
insisted on leaving him and his master in the lurch till

The Cadiz Expedition. "5
they would consent to do the will of Parliament, not their
own. Charles and Buckingham had hoped to be rid of Parlia
ment indefinitely by the dissolution of 12th August. The
fleet should sail, despite the refusal of a supply, should furnish
far more than any supply could yield out of the plunder of
Spanish ports and Spanish treasure ships. Sail it did, ac
cordingly, in the beginning of October, ninety ships strong —
mostly merchant vessels — carrying 5,000 sailors and 10,000
soldiers, under the command of Sir Edward Cecil, Lord
Wimbledon. Its objective was Cadiz, where there was plenty
of booty in prospect in the shape of Spanish ships and stores,
and whence it might sweep out and intercept the Spanish
treasure fleet from the West Indies. Wimbledon bombarded
the port of Puntal in Cadiz Bay into surrender, landed his
10,000 troops, and marched them against a Spanish force
some miles inland. He found no enemy, but his soldiers
found a number of wine cellars, got dead drunk on the con
tents thereof, and stumbled back the next morning to their
ships, after having expended their strength on Spanish wine
casks instead of Spanish soldiers. Wimbledon next attempted
to catch the Mexico fleet, only to discover that it had slipped
past him in the night, and safely anchored in Cadiz Bay two
days after he had left it. The outbreak of disease among his
crews — the consequence of the rotten provisions supplied by
fraudulent officials — aggravated his ill luck and blundering,
and it was with miserably thinned crews and battered ships
that he struggled back against the December storms into
Plymouth Sound.
He brought with him, besides, the condemnation of Buck
ingham's system of favouritism and bravado, even if the ill-
directed blow against the Spanish enemy was to some extent
a popular move. That mismanagement, at which the orators
of the Commons had aimed their rhetoric, was now proved by
dismal failure, and if these orators were given the opportunity
of renewing their efforts, they would be able to point their
speeches by some damning facts now known to all the world.
Charles might hush up the inquiry into the misdoings of
officials which were the misdoings of his minister. The Com
mons would not fail to improve the occasion. Unfortunately

116 Charles Summons a New Parliament.
for Buckingham's reputation and his own, Charles was com
pelled by this and other untoward events to give them an
opportunity of attacking his minister sooner than he wished.
The hope of a peace between Louis XIII. and the rebellious
Huguenots had proved illusory, and the English naval con
tingent in the French service was drawn into the renewed
struggle with the Protestants of La Rochelle, to the disaster
of Soubise's Huguenot fleet. The domestic broils between
king and queen over the English Catholics grew more acute,
and the relations with his royal brother-in-law were thereby
strained almost to breaking point. Buckingham's journey to
the Hague to pledge the crown jewels in return for a loan was
unsuccessful, though he succeeded in patching up an offensive
alliance between England, Denmark, and the States General
(Treaty of the Hague, 29th November). On the 16th Decem
ber Charles felt compelled to summon a new Parliament which
met on the 6th February 1626.
Though he opened it in person, he left the Lord Keeper,
now, by the dismissal of Williams in penalty of his opposi
tion to Buckingham, Sir Thomas Coventry, formerly Attorney-
General, to address the united Houses in his stead. Coventry
indulged in the generalities usual on such occasions, but had
not a word to say on the facts that had once more rendered
the presence, of Parliament necessary. The Commons were
thus left to make their own programme of work, and it soon
appeared that, under the leadership of Eliot, they were not
at a loss for something to do. Charles had taken the pre
caution of " weeding out " the old leaders by making Coke,
Phelips, Seymour, Wentworth sheriffs of counties, and thus
disqualifying them from membership. If he expected the
Commons to be more compliant in consequence, he was soon
to be bitterly disappointed. Eliot was a host in himself, and
with experienced and staunch henchmen like Digges, Sandys,
Perrott, Pym, Selden, Wentworth of Oxford, Hampden to sup
port him, Buckingham's hope of escaping inquisition was
small indeed. Eliot had shared in Buckingham's favour,
owed to him the post of Vice- Admiral of Devon, and had in
the last Parliament, while attacking his policy, exonerated
him from culpable mismanagement in the matter of the fleet.
He was still on fairly amicable terms with his former patron

Eliot Arraigns the Government. "7
and some of his powerful adherents, like the Secretary Conway.
But he was not a man to sway his public action by the con
sideration of past favours or the expectation of future ones.
With him political principle carried it over personal obliga
tion, and after the failure of the Cadiz expedition, whose
lamentable results were brought home to him by the sight of
the emaciated and dying soldiers and sailors in the streets of
Plymouth, he was determined that inquiry should be made
and reckoning demanded in Parliament, if not outside it.
With that imaginative temperament which lent such force to
his oratory, if it tended at times to exaggerate the evils he
condemned, he felt the disgrace of his country as a personal
smart. And he was not wanting in the courage to express it.
Witness the speech on the ioth February, in which the ring
and surge of modern parliamentary eloquence seem even yet
to fall on the ear. Eliot would not hear of the word supply
unless it were the supply of those things for which the nation
had cried out so long — " Supply in government, supply in
justice, supply in reformation, supply in aid of our long-
neglected grievances." The business which the Commons
are there to do is " the country's business, the public care,
the common good, the general affairs of king and kingdom ;
not the mere satisfaction of any private ends or hopes." Had
not the last three Parliaments given subsidy after subsidy, and
was it not time for his majesty to give them something in
return ? In spite of this consecutive giving, in what a wretched
plight is the royal treasury. How, then, could they avoid in
quiring into the outlay of what former Parliaments had granted,
before considering the question of a fresh supply? In other
words, they must continue the inquiry begun in last Parlia
ment, which was merely a sham, and only intended to make
Parliament ridiculous. " What is this but to make a Parlia
ment ridiculous, to pretend integrity and zeal for the common
cause, and then to desert it ? Consists virtue only in show or
word? Do these walls comprehend our duties, and must
they not extend beyond them ? " Then came the climax in a
passionate delineation of the wretched state of the nation, and
a sweeping denunciation of those responsible for the loss and
disgrace inflicted on it. " Our honour is ruined, our ships are
sunk, our men perished, not by the sword, not by the enemy,

118 The Case for Inquiry.
not by chance, but, as the strongest predictions had discovered
and made it apparent beforehand, by those we trust." In
conclusion, therefore, he demanded, without naming the
duke, that committees should be appointed to consider the
conduct of the war and the king's estate, and that these
and other cognate inquiries should have precedence of all
other business.
It was out of the inquisition thus passionately and eloquently
demanded that the impeachment of Buckingham grew into
shape. Apart from the impressionable temperament of the
orator, which tended to carry him into mere declamation, it must
be said that, in all soberness, the case for inquiry was as strong
as glaring facts could make it. Under Buckingham's auspices
two national disasters had followed in quick succession.
The lives of thousands of men had been thrown away in the
futile expeditions to Holland and Cadiz. These men had
fallen a sacrifice to the incapacity of their leaders, to the
inadequate or fraudulent action of subordinate officials, who
were alike Buckingham's nominees. They might be common
soldiers and sailors, pressed largely from the ranks of the
proletariate, but they were Englishmen, and the honour of
England was involved in their fate. Humanity and patriotism
were alike touched in their sacrifice, and it might well occur to
men, less gifted with oratoric art than Eliot, to ask whether it
was not time to protest against such misdirection of power as
that which the year 1625 had witnessed. Buckingham had
absorbed the ruling authority. James in his later years was
but a shadow of a king. The favourite was the real monarch,
and the accession of Charles but tightened his grasp on power.
England was the victim of a fascination that had passed from
father to son, with ever more disastrous effects. Buckingham
owed his dictatorial position to this fascination, and it was
well that at last England stood forward, in the person of an
Eliot, to declare that it would submit no longer to be governed
by a mere adventurer, who might be a shining cavalier, but
was assuredly no shining statesman.
In the course of the inquiry the Commons reopened the
question by whose advice the king had acted. They proposed
to examine the members of the Council of War. Charles
interfered. They might, he said, in accordance with the

Charles Resents their Inquisition. 119
agreement of 1624, inquire whether the subsidies then granted
had been employed for the objects for which they had been
given ; they had no right to set up an inquisition over the
opinions of his councillors. On this point he was inexorable.
"Gold may be bought too dear," said he to the Earl of
Totness, who urged him to give way in order to expedite further
supply. This supply he asked on the 1 oth March through
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He repeated the request
some days later in response to the counterdemand for the
redress of grievances. " I see you specially aim at the Duke
of Buckingham," said he angrily to the Commons through the
Speaker ; " I wonder what hath so altered your affections
towards him. I do well remember that in the last Parliament
in my father's time, when he was the instrument to break the
treaties, all of you did so much honour and respect him that
all the honour conferred on him was too little ; and what he
hath done since to alter and change your minds I wot not ;
but can assure you he hath not meddled, or done anything
concerning the public or commonwealth but by special
direction and appointment, and as my servant, and is so far
from gaining or improving his estate thereby that I verily
think he hath impaired the same. I wish you would hasten
my supply, or else it will be worse for yourselves, for if any
ill happen, I think I shall be the last that shall feel it."
This communication was really too artless to have any
effect in turning the Commons from the inquisition which
they felt to be necessary in the interest of the country.
Charles laboured under the belief that what he thought the
right course must appear so to everybody else. He forgot
that to men like Eliot everything seemed to have gone wrong
these two years past, and that facts had tended to nurture this
conviction. In spite of his assumed ignorance of these facts,
the disasters which had covered two expeditions with disgrace
pointed only too clearly to this conclusion. The royal in
ability to look facts in the face was, even at this early stage in
the reign, leading Charles into a false and dangerous position
of isolation from the real world around him. His desire to
shield his minister might be chivalrous ; he forgot that it was
unwise to do so by blinking the full facts of the case. He
evidently did not realise that the sacrifice of the lives of

120 Eliot Continues the Attack.
thousands of his subjects involved his own honour as well as
that of England.
Instead of complying, the Commons applied themselves
with renewed vigour to the investigation of Buckingham's
conduct. How, demanded Eliot in a trenchant attack on the
duke, whom he now mentioned by name, on the 27th, could
the nation support by its liberality a minister who had
heaped on it nothing but disaster and disgrace, and under
whose auspices corruption, oppression, extortion, had been
rampant? "What oppressions have been practised are
too visible. Not only oppressions of the subject, but oppres
sions on the king. His treasures are exhausted, his revenues
are consumed, as well as the treasures and faculties of the
subject ; and though many hands are exercised and divers
have their gleanings, the harvest and great gathering comes
to one. For it is he who must protect the rest. His counten
ance draws all others to him, as his tributaries ; and by that
they are enforced not only to pillage for themselves, but for
him, and to the full proportion of his avarice and ambition.
This cannot but dishearten, cannot but discourage all men
well affected, all men well disposed to the advancement and
happiness of the king. Nor without some reformation in these
things, do I know what wills or what abilities men can have
to give a new supply." The orator then cited from the records
of Parliament precedents to show that supply had been
refused until redress of grievances had been granted. He
dwelt more particularly on the cases of Hubert de Burgh, in
the reign of Henry III., "the minion both to the king then
living and to his father which was dead," and Suffolk in that
of Richard 1 1., the unworthy favourite whose dismissal the
Commons had compelled by the refusal of a grant. Then
followed a hard hit at the attempt to pledge the crown jewels
to the Amsterdam merchants, fitted to make Charles as well
as Buckingham wince. " Would," cried the orator, after
reading from the records the account of the Commission
granted by Richard II. to inquire into the king's estate,
" would that such a Commission might be granted, if only
that we then could search for the treasures and jewels that
were left by that ever blessed princess of never dying memory,
Queen Elizabeth ! " Let them, therefore, stick by these pre-

Charles' Angry Intervention. 121
cedents ; let them resolve on a supply of three subsidies and
three fifteenths, but refuse to pass the Bill till their demands
had been yielded.
This bold speech, the boldest that had been levelled at a
powerful minister in high favour with the king since the four
teenth century, called forth some feeble criticisms, but its force
was proved by the almost unanimous resolution " that three
subsidies and three fifteenths be granted, payable at separate
times ; the Bill to be brought in when we shall have presented
our grievances and received his majesty's answer thereto."
Charles was furious. That the Commons should presume
to ask for the dismissal of the minister in whom he placed his
confidence was bad enough ; that they should vote resolutions
on the strength of speeches which seemed to reflect on himself
was intolerable. He was as wise as his father and still more
wedded to his own convictions. He believed in Buckingham,
and he held that Parliament should also believe in him for
that reason, and in any case refrain from questioning his right
to do so. Two days later (29th March) he vented his anger,
in the presence of both Houses, in a communication which he
commanded the Lord Keeper to make for him. His majesty,
declared Coventry, would suffer no encroachment on his royal
rights under pretence of parliamentary interference. He
would grant liberty of counsel, but not of control. In attack
ing his minister they were attacking himself, and he not only
commanded them to desist, but to cease prying into affairs
with which neither their experience nor their rights gave them
any concern. They had broken faith with him in refusing to
support a policy to which they had committed both him and
themselves, and they had traduced his government in drawing
a comparison between it and the evil times referred to. He
would have no supply upon conditions, and if they insisted, he
would dissolve them. "Remember," said Charles, after the
Lord Keeper had concluded his recriminatory address, " that
Parliaments are altogether in my power for their calling,
sitting, and dissolution ; therefore, as I find the fruits of them
good or evil, they are to continue, or not to be."
This kind of hectoring rebuke had failed under James to
prevent the Commons from persisting in opposing the royal
will. It was not likely to be more successful now that the

122 Commons Assert Right of Control.
Commons had felt their strength in many a stiff encounter
with prerogative. Charles' threat was that of an absolute
potenate, not of a constitutional sovereign, and it failed com
pletely. Buckingham's attempt to vindicate himself at a con
ference of both Houses, backed as it was by the strong testi
mony of Conway in his favour, was equally ineffective. In
their reply on the 5 th of April, they rebutted the charges
brought against them, and tried to make Charles understand
that they were only serving the true interests of the crown as
well as the general interest. In reference to the inquiry into
Buckingham's conduct, and the royal threat in particular, they
quietly appealed to precedent, old and new. " It hath been
the antient, constant, and undoubted right and usage of Parlia
ments to question and complain of all persons, of what degree
soever, found grievous to the commonwealth, in abusing the
trust and power committed to them by their sovereign — a
course approved not only by the examples in your father's
days, of famous memory, but by frequent precedents in the
best and most glorious reigns of your noble progenitors,
appearing both in records and histories. Without which
liberty in Parliament, no private man, no servant to a king,
perhaps rio counsellor, without exposing himself to the hazard
of great enmity and prejudice, can be a means to call great
officers into question for their misdemeanours ; but the
commonwealth must languish under their pressures without
redress, and whatsoever we shall do accordingly in this Parlia
ment, we doubt not but it shall redound to the honour of the
crown and welfare of your subjects."
Charles refrained from carrying out his threats, and in the
beginning of May the Commons were at last ready to launch
their bolt at the favourite's head. At a conference with the
Lords on the 8th they presented through their managers,
Eliot, Pym, Digges, Herbert, Selden, Glanville, Whitby, and
Wandesforde, thirteen articles of impeachment. They accused
him, inter alia, of having ambitiously engrossed in his own
hands a large number of offices to the detriment of the State,
bought the dignity of Lord Admiral in contravention of the
statutes, failed to guard the seas, to the loss of the subject,
seized a French vessel and thereby induced reprisals on English
shipping, extorted £10,000 by oppressive practices from the

They Impeach Buckingham. 123
East India Company, delivered an English squadron into the
hands of the French king for use against the Protestants of
La Rochelle, sold honours and offices of judicature, mis
employed the revenue for his own benefit, administered
medicine to the late king in his last illness contrary to the
commands of the royal physicians.
Buckingham, who was present, treated the charges with
derision, and laughed at the high-flown rhetoric with which
Digges opened the attack. " My lord," retorted Digges, " I
can show you when a man of a greater blood than your lord
ship, as high as you in place and power, and as deep in the
favour of the king, hath been hanged for as small a crime as
the least of these articles contain." He did not venture to
brave the storm of eloquence with which Eliot drove it home
on the second day (10th May). To the speaker Buckingham
was the incarnation of a wicked minister. All his actions
appeared in the most sinister light. His elevation sprang
from his insatible ambition. Money, not merit, had been the
secret of his success. He had deceived everybody, and he had
respected no law, no right, no interest, in his determination to
be supreme. Even if he had acted as the king's instrument,
which he refused to believe, this was no excuse. It was his
duty to oppose, protest against unwise commands. The re
sponsibility lay with him, not with the king. The speaker
then turned his invective against the misgovernment which
had victimised the land under his auspices. This man had ruled
the country by his ability in intrigue, corruption. " He made
a party in the court, a party in the country, a party in almost
all the places of government, both foreign and at home. He
raised and preferred to honours and commands those of his
own alliance, the creatures of his kindred and affection, how
mean soever ; whilst others, though most deserving, nay, all
that were not in this compass, he crossed and opposed. And
having thus drawn to himself ... in effect the powers of the
whole kingdom, whether for peace or war, and having used
these to strengthen and add to his alliances, he then for his
further aggrandisement set upon the revenue of the crown, in
terrupting, exhausting, and consuming that fountain of supply."
The result had been ruin to the country, and continued ruin
must accrue from his continuance in power. "No wonder,

124 Eliot's Great Speech.
then, our king is now in want, this man abounding so, and as
long as he abounds the king must still be wanting." His
ambition, he continued, had not hesitated to strike at the
person of the late king, for the evidence would show that he
was responsible for his death for his own sinister purposes.
Then, in a few nervous sentences, he bade his audience look at
the picture of rascality which he had etched in such vivid
touches. " In all these now your lordships have the idea of
the man, what in himself he is, and what in his affections.
You have seen his power and " (glancing at the fate of Lord
Arundel who had been sent to the Tower, and of Digby, now
Lord Bristol, who had been charged with treason for their
opposition to the favourite) " some I fear have felt it. You
have known his practices, you have heard the effects. It rests
then to be considered, being such, what he is in relation to the
king, what in relation to the State. What he is to the king
you have heard ; a canker in his treasures, and one that rest
lessly consumes and will devour them. What he is to the
State you have seen ; a moth to goodness, not only persisting
in all ill ways, but preventing better. His affections are
apparent not to be the best, and his actions prove it. What
hopes or expectations, then, he gives, I leave it to your lord
ships." Finally came the famous parallel with Sejanus. The
worst feature of this resemblance was his virtual usurpation
of all authority in the State in his own person. " In his
(Sejanus') public passages and relations, he would so mix his
business with the prince's, seeming to confound their actions,
that he was often styled laborum imperatoris socius, and does
not this man do the like ? Is it not in his whole practice ?
How often, how lately have we heard it ! Did he not in this
same place, in this very Parliament, under colour of an ex
planation for the king, before the committees of both Houses,
do the same ? Have not your lordships also heard him ever
mixing and confusing the king and the State, not leaving a
distinction between them ? It is too, too manifest."
" My lords, I have done. You see the man. What have
been his actions, whom he is like, you know. I leave him to
your judgment."
Such is the terrible picture of the enemy of the State,
drawn with such vivid, rapid touch. In form it is masterly.

Its Weak Points. 125
Is it also true to the life ? Our impression is that it is over
done. To paint Buckingham as an unmitigated rascal was,
after all, exaggeration. It is, of course, the orator's business
to make out a case against him, and he professes to go solely
by the evidence. His case would have been stronger had he
been more moderate. There is no hint, for instance, that
Buckingham believed that his policy and his efforts to carry
it out were for the best in the circumstances. There is no
idea of crediting him with even an ounce of patriotism or
honesty, and that, in spite of disasters and disgraces which
were incontestible, he could claim some title to both, it is
impossible to deny. More telling is the denunciation of his
vicious influence on internal government, though even here
a less impassioned orator would have refrained from indulging
in wholesale badness of motive. It was evident enough that
the country had been the victim of this man who owed his
position to favour, not to merit, and whose government in
turn had been a government of nepotism and favouritism.
There was thus sufficient truth in the picture to substantiate
the demand for his punishment, though Eliot's interpretation
of the facts might not be in all cases that which the historian
can accept.
Buckingham had, however, nothing to fear. Eliot's decla
mation appeared to Charles a denunciation of himself, and he
resented the charges directed at his favourite as keenly as if
they had been levelled against himself. "If Buckingham is
Sejanus, then I must be Tiberius," he burst out bitterly. Next
morning he hurried to the House of Lords with a speech
prepared for him by Laud. He would vouch for the duke's
innocence, and requested the Lords to guard their honour
from the calumnies of the Lower House. He had already
taken steps to punish the insolence of their orators. What
this meant was presently apparent. Digges and Eliot had
meanwhile been called to the door of the House of Commons,
arrested on a warrant from the king, and conveyed to the
Tower. Their disappearance was unnoticed for some time,
and the business continued. At length the truth leaked out,
and a great clamour arose. " Rise, rise, rise," burst from the
lips of their enraged fellow-members, and, in spite of Pym's
appeal for "wisdom and patience," they burst out of the

126 Arrest of Eliot, Anger of Commons.
House to give vent to their feelings with unofficial freedom.
Charles had committed a double blunder. He had attempted
to interfere in a regular trial in the House of Lords ; he had
by imprisoning two of its members in the midst of a session,
dealt a mortal wound to the privileges of the House of
Commons. He had thrown down the gauntlet, not merely to
the enemies of Buckingham, but to the constitution.
Next morning the Speaker rose to proceed with the
business of the day. " Sit down ! " shouted these irate Com
moners ; " no business till we are righted in our liberties."
The appeal of Sir Dudley Carleton, an ex-ambassador and
Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, as the mouthpiece of the
king, was equally unavailing. Let them not provoke his
majesty to extremities against Parliament by driving him to
adopt " new counsels." Let them not court the fate of the
States General of foreign monarchies. " In all Christian king
doms you know that Parliaments were in use antiently, by
which their 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 upon their prerogative,
and at last overthrew the Parliaments throughout Christendom,
except here only with us." The inference from this semi
official declaration was obvious, and it merely served to throw
oil on the flames. The ex-ambassador had considerable
experience of foreign courts : he did not know the House of
Commons, and he blundered right into another clamour.
" To the bar, to the bar," shouted a hundred angry throats.
The majority spared him, as the king's mouthpiece, this form
of penitence, but they refused utterly to take his suicidal
advice, and determined to defend their fellow-members and
repel the attack on their rights. Their determination forced
Charles to give way so far as to release Digges, and to profess
that Eliot was imprisoned for " things extrajudicial to " (com
mitted, i.e., outside) " the House." Carleton again blundered
into a request that they should petition the king to release
him as a favour, and was again shouted into silence. They
would do no business till Charles had explained himself to
their satisfaction.
Finding no plausible proofs among Eliot's papers of any-

Commons will not be Baffled. 127
thing like treason, he was compelled to let him go, and to
submit to the mortification of an unanimous vote of exculpa
tion by the Commons of both members — equivalent to a vote
of censure on his own hasty step. They followed it up by
declaring the levying of tonnage and poundage illegal without
their consent. To make matters worse, Charles had managed
to alienate the Lords by the imprisonment of Arundel. The
Lords were as angry as the Commons at this infringement
of their privileges, and Arundel's release followed that of
Eliot. There were indications that Buckingham's confidence
of an acquittal at the hands of his fellow-peers might after all
be misplaced. " Who accused me ? " asked he with the utmost
assurance, on the 8th June. "Common fame. Who gave
me up to your lordships? The House of Commons. The
one is too subtle a body, if a body ; the other too great a
body for me to contest with. I am confident when my
cause shall be tried, neither the one or the other, or part of
either, will be found to have any ground to be my enemies."
Even if his judges should fail to find him guilty on the evi
dence submitted — and he had no difficulty in weakening some
of the, charges at least, and in proving that he had acted in
foreign policy by the king's orders — the Commons had
determined to assail him on another tack. They were busy
drawing up a remonstrance demanding his dismissal on the
ground of the grievances therein mentioned. On the 9th
June Charles intervened with a peremptory demand for a
supply, and accompanied it with a threat of dissolution. The
Commons answered by giving precedence to the remonstrance,
which reiterated the charges against the favourite, declared
him utterly unworthy of their confidence, demanded his dis
missal as absolutely necessary to the welfare of the State, and
condemned the offensive semi-official declaration of Carleton
as subversive of the rights of Parliament. This was virtually
to tell Charles that even if the Lords should not substantiate
the charges on which Buckingham had been impeached, he
must part with the man in whom the Commons had ceased
to trust. In other words, he could only govern through those
who possessed the confidence of Parliament as well as of him
self. Parliament had the right to say who should govern and
who not. To this doctrine Charles would not submit for a

128 Sources of Chapter VII.
moment, and, on the 15th June, the threatened dissolution at
last put an end to the stormy session, in spite of an urgent
appeal from the Lords, which Charles curtly dismissed. The
baffled king vented his wrath on the remonstrance, which he
ordered to be burned, and on Lord Bristol, the chief of
Buckingham's antagonists in the Upper House, against whom
a series of charges had been presented to the Lords, and
whom he sent to the Tower.
SOURCES. — Lords' Journals, vol. iii. ; Commons' Journals,
vol. i. ; State Papers of the Reign of Charles I. (Domestic
Series), 1625-26, edited by John Bruce ; Debates in the House
of Commons in 1625, edited from the Fawsley MS. by Gar
diner, Camden Society (1873); Debates at Oxford, another
contemporary account, edited by Gardiner in ibid. ; Letters
Relating to the First Parliament of Charles I., in ibid. ; Elsing,
Notes of the Debates in the Lords (1626), edited by Gardiner
for the Camden Society (1879) ; Eliot, Negotium Posterorum,
an account of Charles' first Parliament, written by Eliot
during his last imprisonment, edited by Dr Grosart. The
substance of it, with copious extracts, is given by Mr Forster
in his Sir John Eliot, the standard work on Eliot's career,
based on the unpublished papers at Port Eliot, though some
what panegyrist at times, vol. i. ( 1 864). Rushworth, Collections,
vol. i. ; Constitutional History, vol. vii. (1751) ; Cobbett's Par
liamentary History.vol.ii.; Clarendon, History of the Rebellion,
vol. i. (1826), and Mr Macray's edition (1889); Gardiner,
History of England, vols. v. and vi. (1893). Writers like
Rushworth and Clarendon, as well as the Constitutional and
Parliamentary Histories, require to be controlled by the recent
publications of contemporaneous sources, which have greatly
added to our knowledge of the first years of Charles' reign.

CHAPTER VIIL
The Religious Question — The Petition of Right
(1627-1628).
CHARLES was at cross purposes with his Parliament in
religious as well as political questions. He professed, and
doubtless sincerely professed, an unwavering determination
to preserve the Protestant faith, and his refusal to allow the
queen to befriend her English co-religionists is proof of his
sincerity. He had given the Commons explicit assurances
of his zeal against recusants, and he had thrown over the
religious stipulations of the marriage treaty in order to con
ciliate them. But the Commons were not merely Protestants;
a large majority of them were Puritans of various shades
of colour. Men like Phelips, Eliot, Pym, were not only
staunch antagonists of Popery and its_ adherents, they were
more or less antagonistic to any High Church aberration
from the traditional creed and worship of the Church. The
word Puritan, as applied to the members of James' last, and
Charles' first, Parliament, does not denote identity of belief
and practice. Some were staunch adherents of Calvin in
practice as well as doctrine. Others were Puritans merely in
the sense of desiderating an orthodox, efficient clergy. Others
sympathised more with the Puritan tendency to resist the
ultra-episcopal zeal of James and the high doctrine of prero
gative with which he conjoined it. All were animated by an
exceeding zeal against Papists, which the outbreak of the
Thirty Years' War had intensified, and all equally stood on
common ground in their opposition to the undue exaltation
of the prerogative, whether by the king or the section of the
clergy which supported him.
This section had gradually been making its influence felt
under the patronage of the royal theologian, recently de
ceased. It had found a leader in Archbishop Bancroft, and
aggressive exponents in men like Bishop Overall, of " Convo-
VOL. III. I

t3° Puritans and High Churchmen.
cation Book" fame. Overall, indeed, went further in his
championship of the kingship than James was willing to
follow. He denied that rebellion, under any circumstances,
was justifiable. " If," according to the Convocation Book,
"any man shall affirm . . . that the rebellion against any
king, absolute prince, or civil magistrate, for any cause what
soever, is not a sin very detestable in the sight of God, and,
therefore, by all that fear the Lord to be eschewed, because it
ever tendeth to mischief, and sometimes to the overthrow of
the kingdom, principality, and country where it is raised, he
doth greatly err." In that case, retorted James, if Pliilip of
Spain were to conquer England, and become de facto king, no
Englishman would be justified in defying his authority. The
right of conquest, possession, would legitimate his authority.
The Dutch, he even told these champions of the crown versus
the people, were perfectly justified in their resistance to
Spanish tyranny. God was no patron of a tyrant. Resist
ance to a legitimate king, even if he became a tyrant, was,
however, as "The True Law of Free Monarchy" shows, a
detestable political heresy in James' eyes. It was, if possible,
still more detestable doctrine in the eyes of his son, and,
before his reign was well begun, some of the clergy were
proclaiming the fact in the pulpit and publishing it through
the press. Hand in hand with this tendency went a
strenuous reaction against the Calvinism dear to many
Puritan hearts.
Before the close of James' reign the Commons had already
fallen foul of one of these obnoxious theologians. Mon
tague, the theologian in question, the rector of an Essex
parish, ventured, in a controversial book against the Roman
ists, entitled, " A New Gag for an Old Goose," to recognise that
there were some redeeming features in the Roman Catholic
Church after all. To him the pope was not necessarily
Antichrist, and he took a lenient and apologetic view of
some of the abuses against which the Puritans raged so
fiercely. On the other hand, he could not stand predestina
tion. In James' last Parliament, the Commons, who saw
Arminianism and Popery alike in the book, complained to
Archbishop Abbot, and the archbishop administered a mild
rebuke and some sensible advice. Instead of yielding,

Montague and Arminianism. 13 !
Montague aggravated his fault by writing another book,
" Appello Caesarem," which he dedicated to Charles, and in
which he professed the doctrines of Arminius, and inveighed
against Puritans as hypocrites and praters. On this second
effusion the Commons pounced during the first Parliament of
the new reign, and this time they proceeded to arraign him
themselves as a perturber of the Church, and as guilty of
contempt in presuming to reiterate his opinions in print whilst
his case was sub judice in Parliament. The more zealous
Puritan members would even have added heresy to the
charges against him on the ground that, as Parliament had
sanctioned the Thirty-nine Articles, it had the right to punish
their contravention. The majority was not prepared to
transform the House of Commons into a theological synod,
and waived this charge for the present, but they committed
him to the custody of the Sergeant. At this stage Charles
interfered. He nominated him a royal chaplain, and informed
the House, on the eve of the adjournment to Oxford, that he
had reserved the case for his own consideration. Montague's
Arminianism was no stumbling-block to Charles, though his
father had himself entered the lists against the Arminian
Professor Vorstius, and threatened the States General with
his wrath unless they silenced the heretic. It was enough
for him that the English adherents of Arminius exalted his
royal prerogative.
The Puritan zeal of the Commons refused to be baulked
by such a pretext, and, on reassembling at Oxford, they
returned to the charge. What right had the king to shield
the conduct of a public official, even though he were a clergy
man, from a parliamentary inquisition ? They would at least
have it out with Montague on the charge of contempt, and
his name was to figure in the records of more than one
Parliament in connection with the greater controversy of the
rights of Parliament versus the king. Coke, Phelips, Seymour,
Wentworth of Oxford, insisted on his being brought by the
Sergeant to the bar. Brought he would have been, had he
not, conveniently for himself, fallen too ill to appear.
Whatever Montague's technical offence against the privi
leges of the Commons, this heresy-hunt in Parliament was
fraught with the utmost danger to liberty outside it. The

132 Reaction against Puritan Bigotry.
narrow and belligerent Coke inveighed, not merely against
the technical offence of the accused, but against liberty of
opinion in general. To him " the liberty to every particular
man to put out all sortes of bookes" was intolerable. To
Mr Wentworth, to suffer men to differ from the Puritan
interpretation of the Bible was "to provoke the wrath of
God." To Mr Drake "Arminianism was more dangerous
than Popery," to permit it to go unpunished was to risk their
salvation. Against such intolerant zealots Dr Montague
might well appear the martyr of liberty of opinion. To
dissent from the doctrine of predestination, or object to call
the pope Antichrist, even if Parliament believed in both, was
not necessarily to be a traitor to Protestantism, far less to
Christianity. There was ample room for the rebound from
the narrow dogmatism of Catholic and Protestant, and the
doctor was, to some extent at least, the representative of a
necessary and justifiable reaction in the direction of greater
intellectual freedom — greater flexibility of creed. To a
certain section of the clergy, Puritan dogmatism and Puritan
harshness were repugnant, and they could not bring their
minds to fit into the narrow groove of Calvinism. Both their
intellect and their artistic sense drove them into revolt, and
the Commons, in seeking to stem this revolt, were un
doubtedly guilty of trying to stem intellectual and religious
progress. To them religion had been settled for ever by Act
of Parliament, and was henceforth to remain within the limits
of Act of Parliament. Calvinism was the only possible out
come of the Reformation for England. Such a conclusion
was both unenlightened and vain. Religion would not be
settled by Act of Parliament, whatever the Commons might
say or do. Precedent, law was not the final answer in either
religion or politics.
On the other hand, men of the stamp of a Montague were
not the true harbingers of the intellectual and religious liberty
they claimed to represent. They disowned the doctrines of
Calvin only to put in their place other dogmas equally ex
clusive. They might put forward a plea on behalf of Ar
minianism and even of Antichrist, but they were not prepared
to tolerate those who differed from themselves. Their inter
pretation of the doctrine of the English Church was the only

High Church Political Theory. 133
true one, and any other interpretation must be suppressed by
the king, if not by the Parliament. For Puritan precisians
they had only the utmost contempt. They delighted to
abuse them and they failed to appreciate their moral earnest
ness. They were hypocrites and praters, and there was no
room for hypocrites and praters in the same Church with
themselves. The views of both parties were mutually de
structive in their own eyes, and both parties must make war
upon each other to the death.
Moreover, these liberals, so-called, were the deadly enemies
of political liberty. They exalted the royal power in order
to stem the tide of Puritanism in religion and progress in
politics. Men like Laud, Montague, Sibthorpe, Mainwaring,
were the champions of political slavery. The king held his
office by divine right — no new doctrine indeed, for it was the
doctrine of James himself, and James did not invent it. But it
was now the doctrine of a party in the Church whose interest it
was to maintain it in support of political as well as ecclesiasti
cal ideas. They became rabid political partisans, as aggressive
on behalf of divine right as they were intolerant of Puritan
doctrine and practice. They preached political sermons ; they
expounded the Scriptures in order to support present day
political nostrums. They were political quacks, smatterers in
the pulpit who professed to expound the constitution without
more than a pretence of special knowledge of what they were
talking about. In so doing they prostituted religion to the
level of their political passions and prejudices. They stood
in this respect in the same relation to Charles as the Jesuits
to the pope. They were the protagonists of the most out
rageous pretensions, of the. unlimited power of the monarch
in both Church and State. The logical political issue of their
teaching was the establishment of a despotism in place of a
constitutional monarchy. The pope asserted his divine right
to absolute supremacy over the Church, and, in the name of the
Church, over the State as well, on occasion. This double
supremacy the High Church theologians conferred on the
king. They assumed that they alone embodied the English
Church, and they required the royal supremacy to be exercised
for their interest against their theological opponents. In re
turn they supported its unrestricted exercise in the State

134 Divine Right and Non- Resistance.
against Parliament and people alike. This is sufficiently
apparent in their sermons and writings. " The king's power,"
said Laud in a sermon at the opening of Charles' first Parlia
ment, " is from God. All judges and courts of justice, even
this great congregation, this great Council now ready to sit,
receive influence and power from the king." There is not a
suspicion that Parliament is an elective, representative body.
It is but an instrument of the royal will. Consequently re
sistance is unthinkable to every loyal subject. It is sacrilege.
" The office and person of a king is sacred," he cried in another
sermon (July 1626), "and cannot be violated by the hand,
tongue, or heart of any man, that is, by deed, word, or thought ;
but 'tis God's cause, and He is violated in him." It is not
surprising that a preacher, who could discourse such exalted
nonsense, improved the occasion to discredit his theological
opponents who refused to see the incarnation of God, even in
a political sense, in any mortal man. Puritans who resist the
divine order in the Church are prone to such sacrilege against
the king. " And here kings may learn if they will that these
men, which are sacrilegious against God and His Church, are
the likeliest men to offer violence to the honour of princes
first and their persons after."
Preachers like Sibthorpe and Mainwaring not only empha
sised the divine right of kings ; they did not scruple to back
the king against the Parliament. They proclaimed, for in
stance, that the king might tax his subjects without consent
of Parliament. Resistance to unjust taxation is inadmissible.
Whatever kings do, insisted Sibthorpe in a sermon at the
Assizes at Northampton in February 1626, subjects are bound
to submit passively and suffer with meekness. " Tribute being
due to princes by a triple obligation — the law of God, the law
of nature, the law of nations ... if a prince impose an im
moderate, yea, an unjust tax, yet the subject may not there
upon withdraw his obedience and duty ; nay, he is bound in
conscience to submit." For Mainwaring, who was still more
insistent on the duty of absolute submission, and pronounced
eternal damnation on all who would not agree to be slaves to
an arbitrary will, Parliament is virtually a body of assessors,
not of legislators. The right to tax is inherent in the king,
and Parliament may not challenge this right, if it pleases him

Dictatorial Temper of Laud. 13,5
to make use of it, on extreme and urgent occasions, though
it may apparently be credited with the power of supply in
ordinary ones. Its function is merely "the equal imposing
and more easy exacting of that which unto kings doth apper
tain by natural and original law and justice as their proper
inheritance, annexed to their imperial crown from their very
births." It is an ominous fact that these semi-political sermons
were contemporaneous with the growing influence of Laud.
These preachers might not be authorities on constitutional
law or political questions, — one is tempted to ask, in reading
their sermons, whether such a thing as constitutional law
existed. But they vamped their political dogmas with as
much assurance as Coke himself, and they could reckon on
the royal patronage in doing so. And the royal patronage
in these matters was now equivalent to that of Laud. Laud
had early distinguished his anti-Puritan zeal, and he now lost
no opportunity of calumniating the Puritans as rebels in his
sermons. James ought to have found in him the man after
his own heart, but if he appreciated his hatred of Puritans, he
did not relish the fanatic, dictatorial temper which he saw
would only breed strife and aggravate resistance. He had
kept the enterprising, scheming ecclesiastic, who stickled so
aggressively for uniformity to his own High Church ideas,
at arm's length, and only yielded to the importunities of the
Lord Keeper Williams when he made him Bishop of St
Davids in 1621. "I keep Laud back from all place of rule
and authority," said he to Williams, " because I find he hath
a restless spirit and cannot see when matters are well, but
loves to toss and change and bring things to a pitch of re
formation floating in his brain, which may endanger the stead
fastness of that which is in a good pass." In proof thereof,
he instanced his persistent efforts to upset the ecclesiastical
settlement in Scotland on the basis of the Five Articles of
Perth, in order to bring the Church of Scotland into com-
formity with that of England. Laud, he continued, was a
. zealot without discernment in thus urging him to break his
promise. " I durst not play fast and loose with my word.
He knows not the stomach of that people, but I ken the story
of my grandmother the queen regent, that after she was

136 Charles as Religious Partisan.
inveigled to break her promise made to some mutineers at a
Perth meeting, she never saw good day ; but from thence,
being much beloved before, was despised of all the people."
Williams, nevertheless, if we may believe his biographer
Hacket, continued to importune. " Then take him to you,"
burst out James at last, " but on my soul you will repent it."
In the interval Laud had assiduously courted Buckingham
and had acquired a dominant influence over the mind of Charles,
who went heart and soul over to his ecclesiastical policy. He
surrendered his position as arbiter to become a bitter partisan,
and the baneful result of this surrender was to aggravate the
constitutional quarrel by religious strife. James had, indeed,
shown himself bitterly anti-Puritan, but he was sound in
doctrine, as his controversy with Vorstius shows, and his zeal
was directed only against the more extreme nonconformists
who objected to bishops and the Prayer Book. The bulk of
the Puritan party was now, however, conformist in these
matters, and had Charles followed on the lines of his father, he
need not have found himself at dagger's end with his Parlia
ment on ecclesiastical questions. True, the more moderate
Puritans joined with the nonconformists in defence of the creed
of Calvin, and would grant no quarter to their opponents. But
Charles might have tried to be the protector without becoming
the patron of the Anti-Puritans. There would have been strife
in any case. The aggressive spirit of Laud, the narrow dog
matism of his opponents, made that a certainty, but the king
would at least have avoided the odium of becoming the partisan
of an unpopular cause, and deeply rasping the feelings of the
majority of Parliament and people by identifying the crown
with a party in politics and religion, highly obnoxious to that
majority. It might seem good policy to champion the ad
vocates of non-resistance in Church and State at a time when
resistance was the mood of the nation. This championship
might be the fruit of conviction. It shows none the less that
the champion was not possessed of the genius of the statesman,
and was fitted by nature only to conjure rather than allay the
pugnacious spirit of the age.
The Government, which these quack sermons were in
tended to buttress, had in very deed become arbitrary enough.
The subject had by this time learned in his pocket and in his

Charles' Embarrassments. 137
liberty what the theory of " immediate and unjust " taxation
meant in practice. The clerical interpretation of the constitu
tion, as translated into the form of forced loans, was to him at
least not a very welcome or convincing one. Failing a regular
supply, Charles resorted to the expedient of asking the nation,
through the justices of the peace, for voluntary contributions
(July 1626). In the hope of obviating resistance, he dismissed
the leaders of the parliamentary opposition, Eliot, Phelips,
Alford, Seymour, Sir Thomas Wentworth, &c, from the
office of justice. The device deservedly failed. The nation
was not to be moved by an appeal which was a direct slap
in the face to its representatives. Charles apparently
believed that the parliamentary opposition represented only
itself, was but a self-willed faction of lawyers, squires, and
merchants. Parliament might not represent the nation in its
entirety, but it certainly represented the paying part of it, and
the paying part of it in general flatly refused to contribute.
It would contribute through Parliament or not at all. With
the country in a state of war, this general refusal Was most
serious. It was impossible to maintain the fleet on an empty
treasury, even if Charles could call on the maritime counties
to furnish the ships. In despair he sold part of his plate.
Neither begging nor huckstering would win victories over
Spain, or subsidise Christian and Mansfeld. For want of these
subsidies Christian and Mansfeld were being out-generalled
by Tilly and Wallenstein, and were disastrously beaten at
Lutter and Dessau respectively ( August, May 1626). Lord
Willoughby's fleet, which sailed to attack a Spanish armament
in the ports of Biscay, was driven back by a storm (October).
Worse still, Charles' domestic broils were threatening a com
plete breach with France. He could stand these bickerings
no longer, and in July packed the queen's French priests and
attendants, whose intrigues made a hell of his palace, across
the Channel. There was ample excuse for this proceeding, but
taken in conjunction with the irritation excited by the right
of search of French ships trading between Spain and Flanders,
it was almost equivalent to a declaration of war on his brother-
in-law, and the retaliatory seizure of the English-Bordeaux
wine fleet made war a certainty.
How to face a war with France, as well as with Spain, was

138 Charles' Arbitrary Expedients.
a poser. Charles would try a forced loan, and the forced loan
was exacted in spite of the opposition of the judges, which
was punished by the dismissal of Chief Justice Crew and the
appointment of the compliant Sir Nicholas Hyde in his place.
The forced loan was still more unpopular than the free gift,
but a considerable number of counties submitted to the in
evitable, and intimidation, the billeting of Wimbledon's drunken
soldiers, imprisonment succeeded to some extent at least in
overcoming the unwillingness of the rest. Men like John
Hampden, Eliot, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and many others of
lesser note, who absolutely refused, were summoned to London
and placed under restraint. In vain did five of these recusants,
as they were called, demand a Habeas Corpus, which bound
the crown to show the cause of their committal and the law
court to liberate the prisoner on bail, or remand him as the
case might be. The Court of King's Bench decided, in spite of
the appeal of their counsel to Magna Charta, not only that the
king might in certain cases imprison without cause shown, but
that it was not permissible in the cases before them to ask the
king to do so, and remitted the accused back to prison. They
thus opened the door more widely than before to arbitrary
imprisonment. On this reasoning the king might have ad
duced specious reasons for infringing the liberty of any man
or woman obnoxious to him or his favourite.
With the help of the money thus extorted and the proceeds
of the sale of French prizes, Buckingham prepared to launch
his bolt at Richelieu through La Rochelle. This time there
should be no disgraceful blundering as in Holland and at
Cadiz. The great man in England, the Lord High Admiral
himself, should lead the might of the land to the relief of La
Rochelle, and to glory and plunder, besides, at the expense of
both France and Spain. Buckingham had but to unfurl his
flag and earth and sea would speedily learn to tremble before
the incarnate genius of war. In this spirit he set sail in the
end of June 1627 ; scattered a small force that tried to prevent
his landing on the island of Rhe, off Rochelle ; laid siege to
the chief town St Martin ; hung on for several months in the
vain attempt to reduce it ; sent urgent appeals for reinforce
ments, which only came in driblets, and for a Huguenot
rising, which took place too late to be of any effect ; made a

Blundering and Failure. 139
futile attempt to storm the place in the end of October ; finally
gave it up as hopeless ; suffered on retiring a crushing defeat
from a French relief force which had managed to land on the
island ; and returned with the miserable remnant that escaped
the slaughter in the middle of November. He had shown
conspicuous personal bravery, if not much capacity, and
Charles magnanimously put the blame on the lack of adequate
reinforcements. Buckingham had no doubt of the fact. In
his own eyes he was as great a man as ever, and even more
bent on prosecuting problematic schemes. In the eyes of
the nation, he was not only an enemy, but an unequivocally
discredited enemy of the country. It saw no redeeming
feature in the sorry collapse of so much braggadocio,
and to the charge of responsibility for the disasters of others
there would now be added the charge of responsibility for
his own.Charles could not wash his hands of the risk of repeating
the exploit, even if he had been minded to do so. His obliga
tion to the Rochellese required him to send them speedy
succour " The French king," he told the Venetian am
bassador, " is determined to destroy Rochelle, and I am de
termined to support it, for I will never allow my word to be
forfeited." Money must, therefore, be obtained by hook or
crook to enable him to meet this and other obligations. The
proceeds „of the loan, £236,000, were already swallowed up,
but even with the additional income derived from the sale or
mortgage of crown lands, and an advance of £120,000 by the
city of London, the anticipation of the revenue at the end of
1627 amounted to over £300,000. The Council, at his re
peated entreaties, racked its brains for further arbitrary
expedients — an excise, impositions, universal ship money.
Buckingham, rather ominously, suggested a standing army on
the plea of the necessity of guarding the country against
invasion, and sent two of his creatures to Germany to hire a
body of horsemen. Suspicion saw in this plan an attempt to
govern, if need be, by force pure and simple, to disarm objec
tions to further arbitrary taxation by martial law. Whether
this was Charles' intention or not, he thought better of it, and
in the end of January 1628 yielded once more to the national
demands for a Parliament as the only remedy. To render it

140 Charles Admonishes Parliament.
more placable he set at liberty the recusants against the
forced loan.
Its temper was not likely to be much improved by an
exhibition of grace which most men held to be the recognition
of a right. A large number of the members were elected in
virtue of their opposition to arbitrary taxation and imprison
ment, and they were not the men to refrain from carrying the
spirit of their constituents with them to Westminster. The
successful Government candidates were in a hopeless minority.
After Laud had, on the 17th March, delivered an exhorta
tion to unity, based on the maintenance of the royal authority
in the sense of its clerical champions, Charles addressed a few
rather snappish words to the assembled Houses. It was a
time for action, not for speech. The immediate grant of
supply was the object and duty of this Parliament, and its
refusal would compel him to "use other means which God
had put into his hands " in order to counteract the danger
accruing from " the follies of particular men." He did not
mean to threaten, but only to admonish them. He scorned
to threaten any but his equals, and he was anxious to re
establish good terms and to forget and forgive the past. In
spite of the elaborate exposition of the dangerous complica
tion of foreign affairs, with which the Lord Keeper strove to
strengthen the royal appeal, Charles plainly mistook the temper
of the Commons in assuming that he could have supply on
such easy terms. On this, as on previous and subsequent
occasions, he betrayed his inability to understand his opponents
and his proneness to cherish his own illusions. It was a hard,
almost an impossible, task to let the light of other minds into
the recesses of his own. The vast majority of the Commons,
it soon appeared, were thinking of other things than supply,
and were firmly resolved to follow their leaders in the con
certed attack on arbitrary government, even if their attack
should appear to the infatuated king perversity and rebellion.
Accordingly, on the 22nd March, speaker after speaker rose
to appeal to law and precedent against the grievances from
which the nation was suffering, more particularly against
forced loans, billeting of soldiers, arbitrary imprisonment.
From these speeches we learn once more what we might
have forgotten in perusing the political sermons of the clerical

Commons Appeal to Law and Precedent. 141
champions of divine right, that the English constitution was
still a fact, and that the vast majority of Englishmen still did
homage to the supremacy of law. From them we may realise,
too, the passionate adherence of their representatives in Par
liament to liberty, as they understood it, and their utter hatred
of arbitrary government. One after another the spokesmen
of the opposition invoked the heritage of legal right, the wisdom
of their forefathers. They were on this subject too one-sided
to carry the modern reader quite away on the flow of their
eloquence. But we must remember the age and the occasion.
These men could not appeal to principles which are truisrris
to us. With the exception of Phelips, who appealed to the
original compact between king and people, they limited them
selves to their rights by law, as these had been defined in past
centuries. Had they done otherwise, and attempted to anti
cipate by evolving new principles of political" right, they would
have merely weakened instead of strengthening their case. In
danger of destruction, they could only grasp at those supports
which were tangible, and capable of bearing their weight
against the flowing tide of arbitrary expedients. Precedent
stood high and unbending like some ancient oak by the side
of the raging current, and this oak would not give way under
the clutch of strong arms. Thus, while we may dissent from
some of their utterances as unduly conservative, we cannot
fail to feel the force with which they carried conviction from
the minds of the speakers to those of their listeners. The
appeal to Magna Charta, and all statutes conceived in the
spirit of Magna Charta, was the only efficacious alternative,
even if we remember that Magna Charta and old statutes only
contemplated the existence of the freemen, who by no means
composed the people at large. Magna Charta and other old
statutes in protection of the rights of certain classes were the
only bars to arbitrary government known to those who so
passionately invoked them. Thus the veteran Sir Edward
Coke : " The 26th of Edward III. It is worthy to be written
in letters of gold. ' Loans against the will of the subject are
against reason and the franchises of the land.' What a word
is that franchise ! The lord may tax his villeins high and
low, but it is against the franchises of the land for freemen to
be taxed but by their consent in Parliament. Franchise is a

142 Vindication of Liberty
French word, and in Latin it is Libertas. In Magna Charta
it is provided, Nullus liber homo, &c, and the charter hath
been confirmed by sundry kings above thirty times."- Thus,
too, Sir Robert Phelips : " It is well known the people of this
State are under no other subjection than what they did volun
tarily consent unto by the original contract between king and
people, and as there are many prerogatives and priviledges
conferred on the king, so there are left to the subject many
necessary liberties and priviledges, as appears by the common
laws and Acts of Parliament, notwithstanding what these two
sycophants [Sibthorpe and Mainwaring] have prated in the
pulpit to the contrary. . . . To have my liberty, which is the soul
of my life, taken from me by power, and to have my body pent
up in a gaol without remedy by law, and to be so adjudged !
O improvident ancestdrs ! O unwise forefathers ! To be so
curious in providing for the quiet possession of our laws and
the liberties of Parliament and to neglect our persons and
bodies, and to let them lie in prison remediless ! If this be
law, why do we talk of liberties ? Why do we trouble, our
selves with a dispute about law, franchises, property of goods,
and the like ? What may any one call his own if not the
liberty of his person ? " So, too, Sir Thomas Wentworth, who
gave torrent-like scope to the smarting sense of the wrongs of
the nation, as well as of his own, in a passionate outburst
against arbitrary encroachment on the rights of person and
property : " We must vindicate — what ? New things ? No !
Our ancient, lawful, and vital liberties. We must reinforce
the laws made by our ancestors. We must set such a stamp
upon them as no licentious spirit shall dare hereafter to invade
them." And thus Eliot, who added a protest in behalf of
religion against the insidious tactics of Laud and his disciples :
" The question is not now simply in point of money. .¦ . .
The question, sir, is of the propriety of the laws : whether
there be a power in them to preserve our interests, our just
possessions, our lands, our goods." To admit the power of
the king arbitrarily to infringe such legal rights was to
jeopardise all other rights. " Upon this dispute not only our
lands and goods are engaged, but all that we call ours. Those
rights, those privileges which made our fathers freemen, are
in question. If they be not now the more carefully preserved,

By Coke, Phelips, Wentworth, Eliot. H3
they will, I fear, render us to posterity less free, less worthy
than our fathers. For this particular [infringement] admits
a power to antiquate the laws. It gives leave to the State,
besides the Parliament, to annihilate or decline any Act of
Parliament, and that which is done in one thing, or at one
time, may be done in more or oftener." In a word, to allow
the king to play fast and loose with the consent of Parliament
to taxation was for Eliot the thin edge of the wedge to
despotism. He did not directly attack the king — none of the
speakers did ; he spared even Buckingham, in accordance with
the policy agreed on at a preliminary meeting of the leaders.
But for lack of higher prey, he struck at the Chancellor of the
Exchequer (Weston) and his subordinate officials, and de
manded an inquisition into their conduct. And before he sat
down he had struck at those who, in the Church as well as in
the State, were perturbing the commonwealth and endangering
both liberties and religion by their new-fangled doctrines. Let
them beware whither these blind preachers were leading the
nation and take care of their religion, not only against Papists
but against their Protestant patrons.
Against this appeal to law and liberty Secretary Sir John
Coke's appeal for an immediate supply before grievances fell
dead, coupled though it was with a detailed statement of the
purposes which it was to serve. The utmost length the House
would go, on the 25th March, was to resolve itself into a
committee to consider both grievances and supply. Charles
was bitterly chagrined. " Why, in God's name," he burst out,
when the Secretary announced to him his failure, " should any
one hinder them in their liberties ? " He forgot that this was
the very question to which the Commons desired a satisfactory
answer, and which the events of the past year had started in
every corner of England. The England of Charles was, un
fortunately, no larger than the precincts of his own court.
The debate on supply evoked strong criticisms both of
foreign policy and its miserable results. All this reckless and
ruinous expenditure — for what? demanded angry orators
like Eliot, Wentworth, Phelips, and Seymour. That the
country might reap disgrace at Cadiz and Rochelle, and cor
rupt officials like Bagg, Buckingham's creature, enrich them
selves. Despite these angry criticisms, they would agree to

144 Resolutions against Arbitrary Expedients.
give a grant of five subsidies, and ultimately the House agreed
with them (4th April). Charles was jubilant. " By how many
voices were the subsidies gained?" he asked the Secretary.
" Only one," returned Sir John enigmatically. " How many
were against them ? " queried his majesty further. " None,"
was the cheery reply, " for they were voted by one voice and
one general consent."
It was one thing to pass a resolution, another to pass a
Bill, and the Commons had not in so doing shelved their
grievances. The resolution could only become a formal vote
when these grievances had been satisfactorily redressed, and
Charles' reluctance to give this answer protracted the debates
over this subject for fully two stormy months. The basis
of this debate was a number of resolutions against arbitrary
imprisonment and arbitrary taxation (3rd April), to which
were subsequently added two against the billeting of soldiers
and the exercise of martial law in time of peace. The Com
mons not only debated these resolutions into a petition, but
conferred with the Lords at intervals in order to invest it with
the weight of an unanimous deliverance of both Houses. Both
in the debates and in the conferences the leading part was
naturally taken by the lawyers, and among the lawyers, Coke,
Selden, Littleton stood supreme. Against arbitrary imprison
ment the lawyers contended, and the House agreed that no
freeman could be committed to or detained in prison by com
mand of the king or the Privy Council without cause shown ;
that every person committed or detained had a right to
a writ of Habeas Corpus showing such cause, and that if no
such legal cause was adduced, the prisoner should be delivered
or bailed. Against this contention, Nethersole laboured to
show that in certain cases king and Council must be granted
the right to imprison without cause shown, in the interest of
the State. How dangerous, for instance, to reveal the infor
mation known only to the Council in the case of an arrest for
a conspiracy such as the Gunpowder Plot. The Solicitor-
General, Shilton, appealed, moreover, in turn to precedent,
and cited a decision of Chief Justice Anderson in the time of
Elizabeth. There was some force in Nethersole's reasoning,
and Shilton's precedent appeared rather embarrassing. Even
Coke was nonplussed until he discovered, on referring to the

Conferences with the Lords. 145
case in question, that the Solicitor-General had wrongly inter
preted the Chief Justice. In any case, the arbitrary imprison
ment of conspirators was a very different thing from the
arbitrary imprisonment of freemen, some of whom, like Eliot,
were Members of Parliament, for refusing to pay an arbitrary
tax. There was no gainsaying the general force of the con
tention, and the resolutions against arbitrary imprisonment
were carried unanimously. Equally strong was the contention
against arbitrary taxation. " It is," contended the lawyers,
" the ancient and undoubted right of every freeman that he
hath a full and absolute property in his goods and estate, and
that no tax, tallage, loan, benevolence, or other like charge
ought to be commanded or levied by the king and his
ministers without common assent of Parliament." The pro
position was, historically and practically, so self-evident that
it seems to have been passed without discussion.
On the 7th April they were presented to the Lords in
conference, and enforced with great erudition and elaboration
of argument by Digges, Littleton, Selden, and Coke. Little
ton disposed of Nethersole's objection by contending that, in
cases of treason, it was sufficient to state generally the cause
without adding particulars that might be withheld on grounds
of State necessity. Selden laid stress on the fact that to
grant the king's contention was not only to endanger the
rights and liberties which the subject enjoyed by law, but to
defeat the object of the law itself, which was the guarantee of
them. Coke emphasised the necessity of unity in defence
against a common danger to the liberty of Lords as well
as Commoners. Their arguments were contested by the
Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, who questioned
their interpretation of precedents, and urged more particularly
that no precedent could override the king's right to take
whatever steps were absolutely necessary for the preservation
of the State. Finally, after a second conference, the. Lords
hesitated to commit themselves to the arguments of the dis
putants on either side, and summoned the judges who had
remitted the five prisoners without showing cause. Three of
the four judges were equally hesitant. They had not given a
judgment, but merely a provisional order. " It was," said
Dodderidge, " a remit we granted in order that we might take
VOL. III. K

146 Charles Vainly Intervenes.
better advisement upon the case. The accused might have
had a new writ the next day, and I wish they had." Chief
Justice Hyde alone admitted roundly the right of the king to
commit. The Lords were as wise as ever, and craved another
conference. On the 17th and 18th April the disputants
accordingly renewed and amplified their arguments pro and
contra. Ultimately, after a lengthy debate extending over
four days, the majority of the Upper House decided to adopt
four propositions of their own safeguarding the liberty and
property of the subject, and to add a fifth admitting the right
of the king/in virtue of the prerogative, "intrinsical to his
sovereignty and entrusted to him by God," to imprison in
circumstances of special danger to the State, but praying him
to declare the cause within a convenient time, and leave the
accused to be tried according to law.
Meanwhile Charles had been pressing the Commons in
message after message, each more urgent than its predecessor,
to turn the subsidies resolution into a Bill of supply. He
tried to force compliance by refusing to allow them to adjourn
for the Easter holidays. The device only stiffened the opposi
tion as an encroachment on their right to adjourn themselves.
" The king," said Sir Edward Coke, " prorogues, but the
House adjourns itself." The House protested (10th April),
and determined that, if it was to have no holiday, it would
give the extra time to the consideration of further grievances.
It accordingly proceeded to discuss billeting of soldiers and
martial law, Charles intervened once more to request them
at least to name the date when the subsidies were to be paid.
This they resolved to do, but the resolution committed them
to nothing as long as it was not expressed in the Money Bill.
He next tried a threat of dissolution (12th April). The king,
added the Secretary, deeply resented the disposition to trench
on his royal power under cover of redress of grievances. He
was sharply asked to explain himself, and his silence gave
orators like Eliot, Wentworth, Phelips, an opportunity of
emphasising how sorely their loyalty had been tried by the
abuses of which they complained. His majesty ought rather
to appreciate their moderation than resent their efforts to
uphold the rights of the subject. The retort of the House
was to remind him, through the Speaker, that the considera-

Commons Refuse Lords' Resolutions. 147
tion of grievances had always preceded supply, that the
maintenance of the rights and liberties of the subject was
essential to the glory of the monarch, and that -those who
traduced the Commons in his presence were no true friends
of the royal power. They added a petition against billeting
of soldiers, in which they told him that the lawlessness of the
soldiery was disgracing the royal name as well as impoverish
ing and demoralising the people. Charles, in reply, rebuked
their insistence, and put them off with a renewed appeal to
necessity. " Do not," he urged, " spend so much time in this
as to hazard both my prerogative and your liberties to our
enemies." The appeal fell on deaf ears, and it was in this unyielding
temper that they received the mediatory propositions of the
Lords on the 26th April. They were especially suspicious of
the admission of what the Lords called intrinsical prerogative,
buttressed as it was by divine right. Admit that, said Coke
in effect, and you may relegate the laws to the lumber room.
The fifth proposition, they felt, could not be safely accepted
as long as men like Buckingham and Laud might influence
the exercise of this intrinsical prerogative. Nor can we
reasonably blame their scepticism. If Charles had trusted
his Parliament as much as he trusted the obsequious clerics
and empiric politicians whose word was law, he need not have
begged the Commons to hasten the most generous supply
ever offered to an English king. It is very evident that this
lack of confidence was the secret of the determination that
drew the strings of the national purse so tightly, in spite of the
emphatic profession of loyalty which the Commons inter
mingled even in the most passionate appeals to law and right.
They felt, if they did not say, that as long as Charles allowed
himself to be estranged from them and the nation they
represented, by evil counsellors, their liberties were not worth
the paper they were written on. If they could not force him,
by the obstructive tactics which the constitution allowed them
to use, to eschew these counsellors, , the royal word was no
guarantee of the abeyance of forced loans, arbitrary imprison
ment, and other oppressive devices. It must be said for
them that facts, present and future, tended to confirm their
conclusions.

148 Bill to Enact Liberty Statutes.
This trust was, nevertheless, what Charles, in his own self-
sufficient, dogmatic manner, requested of them. On the 28th
April he summoned them to his presence in the Upper House
to assure them, through the Lord Keeper, that he admitted
the binding force of Magna Charta and the other six statutes
bearing on the liberty and property of the subject, that he
would govern according to law, and that they might rely on
his royal word and promise as surely as on any Act they
could make. This was surely explicit enough. Coming from
a ruler who would have heartily identified himself with the
aspirations of his people instead of moulding his actions in
accordance with the schemes of certain individuals, obnoxious
to the people on various grounds, it probably would have
conquered dissent, for the time being at least. To the
Commons there were overwhelming reasons why these
assurances should be transformed into irrevocable statutory
guarantees. Many of them had been the victims of arbitrary
tactics, and the sense of personal as well as national wrong
whetted their desire for its absolute redress. Suppose the
immediate vote of the subsidy Bill were not in question, would
his majesty be so ready to confirm Magna Charta and the other
laws against oppressive government by his pledged word?
No, argued Eliot, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and others, and
therefore his majesty must be pleased to put his signature to
a Bill in formal, unequivocal confirmation of these guarantees,
as applied to the grievances of the day. The Commons
accordingly drew up a Bill re-enacting Magna Charta and
the other laws in the sense in which the Commons understood
them, and adding a clause against billeting, and this Bill a
committee of the whole House was engaged in debating
when, on the ist May, Charles again intervened, through
the Secretary, to ask once more whether they would take his
royal word or not. If they would trust him, they might rest
assured that he would royally fulfil his promise. The king,
added the Secretary, in the face of the silence of the House,
is fearful lest his prerogative be involved, and why should we
strive to have more liberty than our forefathers ? Make what
law you will, you must still admit the royal right to commit
in extraordinary cases without showing cause. Several voices
were at length raised in favour of acceptance, until Wentworth

Wentworth's Device in its Support. *49
rose to rally the majority once more round the Bill. "We
are," he reminded them, " accountable to a public trust, and,
therefore, seeing there hath been a public violation of the
laws by his ministers, nothing will satisfy them but a public
amends, and our desires to vindicate the subjects' right by Bill
are no more than are laid down in former laws, with some
modest premises for illustration, performance, and execution."
Wentworth carried the House with him, and it determined to
present a representation or remonstrance on the lines of his
speech, in spite of another intimation from the king that he
would stand by his word, but would defend his prerogative
against all innovations. In the representation they professed,
as usual, the utmost confidence in the king, and disclaimed
any intention of encroaching on the prerogative, but their
obligations to the nation made it necessary to secure what
they called " a public remedy " for the evils from which they
suffered. Charles was unable to see the force of this reason
ing, and their profession of absolute confidence was certainly
not consistent with the suspicion which they really , enter
tained, and which their attitude, if not their words, Betrayed.
" Ye acknowledge this trust," said the Lord Keeper in reply,
"in your proceedings, but the king sees not how you requite him
by your confidence of his word and actions. For what need
explanations if ye doubted not the performance of the true
meaning ? " Nevertheless, since nothing but a Bill in confir
mation of Magna Charta and the other statutes would satisfy
them, he would not stand in- the way. Only there must be
no additions or explanations derogatory to his prerogative.
The Commons were no nearer the goal than ever. A Bill
to re-enact the liberty statutes, without explicit application to
the present controversy, could be no satisfactory solution of
the problem. The reservation of the prerogative might once
more afford a pretext for arbitrary imprisonment, despite the
most solemn assertions to the contrary. The king's judgment
or his conscience would still, in certain contingencies, be the
only safeguard of liberty, and his majesty's judgment or con
science could not take the place of an explicit enactment.
The Commons, therefore, decided to abandon the Bill on
these terms and to adopt a petition embodying the resolutions
submitted to the Lords. Such a petition, argued Coke, who

15° Commons Substitute Petition of Right.
made the suggestion, would settle the question indubitably,
for it would ask the king to assent, not merely to certain
general statutes of hoary antiquity, but to the condemnation
of the grievances from which they themselves were suffering.
This, and this alone, would render the perpetration of such
abuses impossible for the future. " When grievances be, the
Parliament is to redress them. Did ever Parliament rely on
messages ? They put up a petition of their grievances, and
the king ever answered them. The king's message is very
gracious, but what is the law of the realm ? That is the
question. I put no diffidence in his majesty. The king must
speak by a record, and In particulars, not in general. . . . All
succeeding kings will say, Ye must trust me as well as ye did
my . predecessors, and trust my messages. . . . Let us put
up a Petition of Right. Not that I distrust the king, but I
cannot take his trust but in a parliamentary way."
Charles' obstructive tactics had thus only aggravated the
situation for himself. A Bill re-enacting certain statutes, with
some additions to assure the subject against arbitrary loans
and imprisonment, was after all a comparatively mild request.
And now he would have to listen, in the preamble sub
stantiating the Petition, to a recital of the misgovernment of
the past two years, and have the misdeeds of ministers and
their creatures, whom he had so staunchly defended, blazoned
before the whole nation. Nevertheless, the Commons pro
ceeded to transform their resolutions into a Petition, and on
the 8th May it was ready for presentation to the Lords.
They must have known that the king, if not the Lords, would
resist, and to tempt Charles to compliance they fixed the
dates on which the subsidies were to be paid.
The debate in the Lords turned on the crucial point of the
prerogative. Charles intervened with a letter claiming once
more the right to imprison without showing cause in certain
cases in which the safety of the State was at stake. To deny
this right was in his eyes to withdraw the sovereign power
which he derived from God, as well as endanger the State.
He would, however, undertake for himself and the Privy
Council not to imprison any subject for refusing to lend
money, or for any other reason which did not concern the
public safety. Cases of this latter description they might

Refuse Modification of Lords. 151
safely leave to his judgment and conscience, and even in such
cases he undertook to show cause as soon as the safety of the
State would admit of its disclosure. In all other causes the
judges should proceed in strict accordance with Magna Charta
and the six statutes cited. The letter made an impression on
the Lords, though it failed to move the Commons, to whom
they submitted it, from their position, and for two days they
exercised their ingenuity to find an expedient which would
both satisfy the king and commend itself to the Lower House.
At last, after much hair-splitting, they hit upon a saving
clause, " leaving entire that sovereign power wherewith your
majesty is trusted for the protection, safety, and happi
ness of your people." Their ingenuity was wasted on the
Commons. They refused to admit any power to dispense
with the laws on which the safety of the State, as well as the
individual, depended — least of all a power founded on divine
right. "According to Bodin," objected Alford, "sovereign
power is free from any condition. We shall then acknowledge
a regal as well as a legal power. Let us give that to the king
which the law gives him and no more." " All our petition,"
said Pym, " is for the laws of England, and this power seems
to be another distinct power from the power of the law."
"This," added Coke, "is magnum in parvo, and, to speak
plainly, it will overthrow all our petition. It trenches on all
parts of it. . . . Look into all the petitions of former times ;
they never petitioned wherein there was a saving of the
king's sovereignty. I know that prerogative is part of the
law, but sovereign power is no parliamentary word. ... If
we grant this, by implication we give a sovereign power above
all these laws." In other words, the Commons flatly refused
to subscribe to the doctrine of sovereignty by divine right, or
to recognise any power in the king, in virtue of this super
natural sovereignty, to infringe the rights of the subject in the
sense in which they held that they had been enacted by law.
To grant such a sovereignty would, as Sir Henry Martin
subsequently told the Lords, undermine the legal basis of
their rights in spite of royal promises and disclaimers. The
king, according to this claim, might not imprison or enforce
loans by the laws, but he might by his sovereign power. It
was just such an arbitrary exercise of the royal power that

i52 The Lords Ultimately Agree.
the petition was intended to render impossible, and from this
guarantee they would not move a hair's - breadth. Their
Petition was in fact an ultimatum to the Lords as well as to
the king, though they continued to discuss the point in
dispute in several conferences, and Wentworth emphasised
the necessity of carrying the Upper House along with them
if they were to gain the day. They felt that the nation had
suffered in its most sacred rights, and as the nation's repre
sentatives it lay with them to redress its wrongs. The Lords
might refuse their co-operation, but the Commons were " no
mere cyphers to nobility," as Eliot spiritedly retorted to
Wentworth, and the real right to decide for the nation lay
with them. Happily, the Lords did not persist in their
evasive course. A minority headed by Saye had from the
outset supported the Commons, and under the leadership of
Bristol, Arundel, and Williams this minority ultimately
became a majority to the discomfiture of Buckingham and
his friends, who held tenaciously to the saving clause. A
declaration which formed no part of the Petition, but ex
pressed their recognition of the royal supremacy, and to
which the Commons might have subscribed, silenced all
further opposition, and on the 28th May the Petition, with
the exception of some verbal alterations, was accepted as it
had come from the Lower House.
It had still to win the approval of the king, and but for
the cruel logic of events this approval would certainly never
have been given. Fortunately for Lords and Commons,
Charles could not afford to risk five subsidies by defying their
united will. Morgan had been forced by sheer starvation to
surrender Stade to the imperialists. Denbigh's fleet had
failed to succour La Rochelle, and on the day before the
Petition passed the Lords, it hove in sight off the Isle of
Wight. Its crews were both sick of body and sick of the
fatuous enterprise on which they had been sent against their
will. In his desperate dilemma Charles asked the judges
whether, as far as the law was concerned, he might not
commit without showing cause, and whether, in case he
could, his assent to the Petition would absolutely prevent him
from doing so. He was assured that he might commit in
urgent cases " for a convenient time," and that even if he

Charles' Evasive Reply. 153
bound himself to the Petition, the judges could still interpret
it according as the case might arise. From the judges he
turned to the Privy Council and finally resolved to avoid the
point and give a vague reply. " The king willeth," said the
Lord Keeper, speaking by his command to both Houses on
the 2nd June, " that right be done according to the laws and
customs of the realm." That is to say, the Lords and
Commons might re-enact these laws by means of their
Petition, but Charles would, notwithstanding, be in his own
eyes exactly in the same position as before.
The Commons were not thus to be juggled with. They
would have yea or nay from the king as from the Lords, and
they maintained their ultimatum as resolutely in the face of
the king as they had done in the face of the Lords. Charles
evidently did not even yet realise the stern determination
which the grievances of the past four years had steeled in
these stout Commoners, and next day Eliot rose to propose
that they be unequivocally set before him in a remonstrance.
It was a sombre picture that his throbbing eloquence unfolded
in view of his fellow-members. All the political quackery,
incompetence, and corruption of the Buckingham regime were
unsparingly set forth in the terse and nervous periods that
rang in denunciation of misgovernment through the House.
In paragraph after paragraph of this denunciatory eloquence
his indignation swept onwards, gathering the strength of the
whirlwind as it went. The causes of the mischievous state of
affairs lay, he cried, " in our want of true devotion to Heaven,
our insincerity and doubling in religion, our want of councils,
our precipitate actions, the insufficiency or unfaithfulness of
our generals abroad, the ignorance or corruption of our
ministers at home, the impoverishing of the sovereign, the
oppression and depression of the subject, the exhausting of
our treasure, the waste of our provisions, consumption of our
ships, destruction of our men. These make the advantage of
our enemies, not the reputation of their arms. And if in these
there be not reformation, we need no foes abroad ; time itself
will ruin us." In amplification of these points he recapitulated
the history of recent events in order to show that the direction
of affairs, both foreign and domestic, had been one tissue of
criminal folly. In every direction to which he turned his

154 Eliot's Denunciation.
interrogations, the answer was the same, — gross and criminal
bungling. And who had been responsible for this symphony
of wrong-doing? Was it the Privy Council? he queried,
turning to Sir Humphrey May, a privy councillor, who had
tried to interrupt him and been howled into silence by the
House for his pains. " I have more charity than to think it,"
he continued, answering his own query, "and unless they
make a confession of themselves, I cannot believe it." His
listeners only too well understood the point of the question.
The evil genius of Buckingham threw its sombre shadow over
the whole picture presented to their gaze. Eliot did not
apostrophise this evil genius by name, but the conclusion of
his speech was equivalent to an accusation of the man to
whose latent nefarious influence he rightly ascribed the virtual
evasion of their demands for redress. " These, Mr Speaker,
are our dangers . . . these are like the Trojan horse brought
in cunningly to surprise us ; in these do lurk the strongest of
our enemies, ready to issue on us, and if we do not speedily
expel them, these are the signs, these are the invitations to
others : these will so prepare their entrance that we shall
have no means left of refuge or defence, for if we have these
enemies at home, how can we strive with those that are
abroad ? If we be free from these, no other can impeach us.
Our ancient English virtue, like the old Spartan valour,
cleared from these disorders . . . will secure us, and unless
there be a speedy reformation in these, I know not what
hopes or expectations we can have."
Eliot had long been waiting for this opportunity to deliver
his soul in this direct fashion of its pent-up wrath against
the man whom he held responsible for the ruin of the ,
country. He had been overruled by the other leaders at
the beginning of the session, and now he had boldly risked
his head in deference to his conscience. And he carried the
majority with him in spite of a disposition to ask the king for
a fuller answer to the Petition before proceeding with the
remonstrance. In vain did Charles appeal to them to pro
ceed with the Subsidy Bill on the ground of his answer to
their Petition (4th June), and announced the impending end
of the session. They paid no attention to the appeal and
resolved themselves into a committee on the remonstrance.

"The Grievance of Grievances." 155
Next day (5 th June) came a peremptory order to refrain from
proceeding with any business "which may lay scandal or
aspersion upon the State, Government, or ministers thereof."
For a short time the House was struck as if by paralysis.
On recovering its speech, Phelips saw nothing for it but to
give up the contest and disperse to their homes. Eliot struck
a different note. His intention was evidently to make a
direct onslaught on the duke. In a moment the Speaker
was on his feet. " There is a command laid upon me," said he,
" that I must command you not to proceed." Eliot sat down,
and Rich rose to propose that they ask the Lords to join in
the remonstrance. No, said Coke, after the House had again
turned itself into a committee and the Speaker had left the
chair to hurry to the king with the fell news. Let us state
our grievances, and let us name the Duke of Buckingham
as the cause of all our miseries. "That man is the
grievance of grievances." The suggestion was received with
acclamation, and the House was proceeding to act on it when
once more Charles intervened with an order to adjourn till
the morrow.
Dissolution, it seemed, must now be the only solution.
At this critical conjuncture the co-operation of the Lords
came to the rescue. They sent the Lord Keeper to acquaint
the king with the turn things were taking. Charles drew
back and sent an explanatory message to the Commons
withdrawing the embargo on their right to inquire into the
state of the country (6th June). They accordingly renewed
consideration of the remonstrance, but at the suggestion of
the Lords, agreed on the following day, the 7th, to interrupt
their labours and unite with them in a request for a more
definite answer.
Charles saw that he must surrender, and in the afternoon
he appeared before both Houses to announce the fact.
" Read your Petition," said he, " and you shall have such an
answer as I am sure will please you." The reading finished,
there followed the customary words which made it the law of
the land, Soit droit fait, comme il est desire". The plaudits
which rang through the assembly were as much plaudits of
victory as of gratitude. " Whereupon," adds the scribe, " the
Commons returned to their own House with unspeakable

156" Charles Gives Way.
joy." Their triumph was that of the people, and the shouts
of the populace in the streets without proclaimed the popular
appreciation of the victory of their champions as well as of
the goodness of the king.
There was, indeed, cause for jubilation, as the following
quotation from the Petition, in the form in which it was finally
accepted, shows. It follows a lengthy recital of the legal
rights of the subject and their contravention in recent times.
" They do, therefore, humbly pray your most excellent
majesty that no man hereafter be compelled to make or
yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge
without common consent by Act of Parliament ; and that
none be called to make, answer, or take such oath, or to give
attendance, or be confined, or otherwise molested or dis
quieted concerning the same, or for refusal thereof ; and that
no freeman in any such manner as is before mentioned be
imprisoned or detained ; and that your majesty will be
pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners, and that
your people may not be so burdened in time to come ; and
that the foresaid commission for proceeding by martial law
may be revoked and annulled ; and that hereafter no com
missions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons
whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them
any of your majesty's subjects be destroyed or put to death
contrary to the laws and franchises of the land."
Such in its final form was the answer of the Lords and
Commons to the political preachers who ignored the law and
quoted Scripture in order to vindicate the arbitrary tactics of
the king. In this lengthy, but pregnant sentence, the royal
power is unequivocally circumscribed by the legal rights of
the subject, and the king guarantees these rights without a
syllable of reservation. The Petition is thus a landmark
in the history of modern liberty in England, even if it cannot
be said to have put an end to arbitrary government. This
distinction was reserved for the Bill of Rights sixty years
later. The Commons had, nevertheless, not laboured in vain.
Their Petition could never become a mere antiquarian monu
ment, though for a number of years it failed to prevent the
recourse to arbitrary measures. It stood there as a witness
for the constitution to which England could appeal, and in

Significance of the Petition. 157
the face of this witness it was henceforth impossible for
Charles to claim that he had the law on his side, though he
might explain his obligations to suit himself. He still had
his prerogative to appeal to, and he was as convinced as ever
that his prerogative, as he understood it, was intact. But in
the eyes of the subject the appeal to prerogative could not
henceforth render arbitrary taxation or imprisonment feasible,
and if Charles persisted in being wiser than the subject in this
matter, the consequences must ultimately be very serious.
He was not made of the stuff that could afford to play the
absolute ruler with impunity. Nor was England, like France,
a country where the experiment could be attempted with
success. Meanwhile there was no cloud to dim the sunshine of the
national jubilation. The Commons read the Subsidy Bill
a third time on the 12th June and sent it to the Lords. They
impeached Mainwaring for the outrageous exaggeration of the
royal power at the expense of the subject contained in his
sermons. The Lords found him guilty, in spite of disclaimers
and explanations, " of attributing unto the king a participation
of God's omnipotence, and an absolute power of government,
of scandalous assertions against Parliaments, and of branding
those gentlemen who refused the late loans with damnation."
They sentenced him to a fine of £ 1,000, to imprisonment
during their pleasure, to suspension for three years, and
disablement for preferment for ever. He was accordingly
sent to the Fleet to ruminate on the presumption and folly of
clerical interference with political questions, in defiance of such
a body as the English House of Commons. Charles not only
acquiesced in the punishment of his clerical protagonist, who
was also the prote"g£ of Laud, but acceded to the request for
a proclamation consigning his book to the flames.
The Commons, one is tempted to think, might now have
rested on their laurels for the time being. Their appetite
for victory in the cause of reform was, it speedily appeared,
insatiable. They had not shelved their remonstrance, and
they were resolved to ask for a far greater sacrifice to their
reforming zeal than that of a sycophant doctor of divinity. In
this document they declared Buckingham's regime dangerous
to the State, and on the ground of his abuse of power prayed

158 Renewed Friction and Dissolution.
for his disgrace and dismissal. Charles refused point blank:
Unabashed, they proceeded to formulate another demand.
They had not forgotten impositions. Tonnage and poundage,
they argued, not quite conclusively, was a tax which by
precedent, and more especially by the Petition of Right, was
invalid without consent of Parliament.
Charles could stand no more of it, and before they had
time to finish this additional remonstrance, abruptly sum
moned them to the Upper House on the morning of the
26th June, and prorogued them in a state of great irritation.
He reminded them that in pressing for the Petition they had
disclaimed any intention of trenching on his prerogative, and
though he would abide by his word, he had not granted any
new, but only confirmed their ancient liberties. He had still
another loophole in the recesses of his mind. To the judges,
they must further bear in mind, belonged the interpretation of
the laws. The indictment against Buckingham he would
ignore. Tonnage and poundage he regarded as his due and
would not waive it.
Despite the Petition, therefore, the Commons were sent
away with the consciousness that they had still a king with a
will of his own to deal with. Needless to say, Charles had
not reconciled and would not reconcile himself to the r61e of a
strictly constitutional king, which they had sought to trace
for him.SOURCES. — For Montague's case during the session of
1625 see Elsing, Notes of the Commons' Debates, 1625. The
views of the clerical advocates of divine right are contained
in Laud's Sermons, Works, vol. i., edited by Scott for the
Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology (1847), and Seven
Sermons preached by W. Laud (1651); Sibthorpe, Apostolic
Obedience (1626); Maynwaring, Religion and Allegiance
(1627); The Convocation Book of 1606, commonly called
Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, in the Library of Anglo-
Catholic Theology. For Arminianism, see the Works of
Arminius, translated by NichoUs (1828), and the Confession
or Declaration of the Remonstrants or Arminians (English
translation, undated) ; Moeller, History of the Christian
Church, vol. iii., translated by Freese (1900); NichoUs,

Sources of Chapter VIII. i59
Calvinism and Arminianism (1824); Moorhouse, Arminianism
and Calvinism compared (1824). Lords' Journals, iii. ;
Commons' Journals, i. ; State Papers, 1627-28, and 1628-
29 ; Rushworth, Historical Collections, i. (the Collections omit
important matter at times and require to be controlled and
amplified from other sources) ; Constitutional History, vii. and
viii. ; Parliamentary History, ii. ; Gardiner, Constitutional
Documents of the Puritan Revolution (1889); The Earl of
Strafforde's Letters and Despatches, edited by Knowler, vol. i.
(1740) ; Letters and Papers of the Verney Family, edited by
Bruce for the Camden Society (1853); Hacket's Life of
Williams, part ii. ; Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, i.,
represents the views of the party adverse to the Commons ;
Foster, Life of Eliot, ii. (1864) ; Gardiner, History of England,
vi. (1893). Mr Gardiner drew on additional material for his
account of the Parliament of 1628, and his work has conse
quently superseded to some extent even Mr Foster's Life of
Eliot. He made use, for instance, of the Harleian MSS. and
Elsing's and Nicholas' Notes of the Debates.

CHAPTER IX.
Breach with Parliament, and Government •
without Parliament (1629-1640).
Little more than six months elapsed before the assembling
of the Houses on the 21st January 1629. Short as was the
interval, it witnessed some startling developments — " remark
able passages," as Rushworth calls them. Hardly had the
session ended when Wentworth ranged himself on the
king's side, and was rewarded for what his enemies call his
apostasy, his friends his public spirit, with a peerage.
The presidency of the Council of the North followed
some months later. Apostasy is too hard, public spirit,
perhaps, too flattering, a term to apply to this change
of front. Wentworth had long been a suitor for office, but
Buckingham had kept a man of his powers at arm's length
as too dangerous to his supremacy. His ambition had been
relegated to the House of Commons for its sphere of exercise,
and he had gained deserved distinction as a leader worthy to
be the rival of Eliot himself in ability and eloquence. He
deserves the credit of using his great powers in a noble cause,
and in his championship of that cause he was as earnest as
Coke or Eliot. He had felt the smart of injustice under an
arbitrary regime, had been disqualified from serving in the
Parliament of 1626 by his nomination as a sheriff of his
county, and had been dismissed from his office as Custos of the
West Riding for his hostility to the loan. This high-handed
treatment galled his proud spirit and doubtless helped to
make him the strenuous supporter both of the Bill of Right
and the Petition of Right. Nevertheless he was not born to
be a parliamentary leader in the age which produced an Eliot
and a Pym. The natural sphere of Eliot and Pym was in the
, House of Commons ; their mission, to make the Commons the

Wentworth goes over to the King. 161
dominant force in the State. That of Wentworth was to wield
the power of high office under a monarch whom he could
guide and inspire with his own strong spirit. He was fitted to
be the mainspring of a bureaucratic regime, and in this r61e he
would have tried to eschew both the blunders and the follies
of a Buckingham and given himself to the task of governing
England for the benefit of the subject as well as the king. It
was because England was so ill governed that he threw his
strength into the opposition to the favourite and did battle
for the rights of the subject. Nevertheless he was, as Mr
Gardiner says, " with the opposition, but not of it." He went
the length of asserting rights which he saw to be essential to
the welfare of the nation. These gained, he would go no
farther. To make the House of Commons the predominant
factor in government was, in his eyes, to court anarchy. It
was almost inevitable, therefore, that such a man should come
to the parting of the ways. He was not gifted with that
intensity of devotion to a public cause for its own sake, which
marked out Eliot for the r61e of tribune of the people and no
other. He had worked for the people, honestly and earnestly,
we may, believe, but he had ever an eye on the court, where the
sphere which he would fain fill alone lay. In this repect he
occupies a lower plane than his great fellow-orator, whose
thoughts seemed always for his country, never for himself.
And it is not easy to avoid charging him with inconsistency,
if not with apostasy, in view at least of his future attitude
towards the rights of Parliament which he had thus far helped
so materially to vindicate. It is impossible to recognise fn the
Wentworth of 1640, the champion of unconstitutional, arbi
trary measures, the Wentworth of 1628, the champion of the
Petition of Right. He might, however, plead that at this
stage the zeal of the Commons had outrun his own, and that
he could not walk farther on the way ^o parliamentary govern
ment on which Eliot was bent on leading the Commons. It
might well seem to a man of his type, who trusted in his own
powers to rule and distrusted those of a popular assembly,
that the Commons were outstripping their proper functions.
There was room for hesitation, diversity of opinion as to the
trend of things. And Wentworth was not the last to hesitate,
dissent at a moment of crisis when two tendencies clash, and
VOL. III. L

162 End of Buckingham.
the present seems a rent between the past and the future.
The history of the Long Parliament was to produce many such
" apostates " who could not in all things see eye to eye with the
majority, whether that majority were Roundhead, or Presby
terian, or Independent, and yet could not fairly be called
deserters from the cause they had championed.
A far more startling event was the assassination of
Buckingham as he was about to set out a second time to
the relief of La Rochelle. The Lord Admiral, who had thrice
braved the onslaught of the Commons unscathed, fell a victim
to the knife of a lieutenant of foot whom personal grievances,
mingling with the grievances of his country, had made a
dangerous monomaniac. It was a wretched finale to so
meteoric a career, but outside the court there were few to
bewail the tragedy. If Buckingham was not the unmitigated
incarnation of evil of Eliot's invective, and had some good
traits and much more patriotism than his enemies gave him
credit for, the fact could not be gainsaid, that he owed his
fortune to the infatuation of his sovereign, and had long lost,
if he had ever possessed, the confidence of his countrymen.
His career had certainly been an unmitigated failure, despite
his self-assertion, his supreme belief in himself. Supreme in
the Cabinet and the Privy Council, he had ample scope for
proving himself one of the greatest, as he was one of the most
powerful of ministers in English annals. The task of guiding
the nation at such a time would certainly have taxed the
powers of a born statesman. Even genius might have failed
in the face of a tremendous international complication, from
which England could not well remain free, and a national
convulsion which was changing the old order into the new.
Buckingham was merely a political adventurer; the spoiled
child of fortune who possessed some brilliant qualities of the
cavalier order, but who certainly was not gifted with political
genius. With no higher ability than that of the brilliant
courtier, and all the self-assurance of the real statesman, he
could only, in such a time of stress and storm, steer the ship
of State on the rocks. Even if the Commons had shown more
alacrity in lending a helping hand, such a pilot could not
have saved them from shipwreck, as Charles believed and his
defenders asserted. To challenge the hostility of Spain,

Illegal Taxation. 163
France, and the emperor all in a breath was a freak of
infatuation worthy of Don Quixote. The Commons rightly
judged that the country could not afford to be governed by
politicians of the Don Quixote order.
His tragic removal from the scene of his madcap exploits
did not result in the amelioration that the Commons had
promised themselves in their remonstrance to Charles. The
surrender of the starving Rochellese, in spite of a third attempt
under Lord Lindsey to succour them, rendered it probable
that they would not again be asked in a hurry to grant away
English treasure in support of such Quixotic enterprises.
The war fever was beginning to abate even in Charles, and it
had a decided antagonist in Weston, now Lord Treasurer, and
destined as Earl of Portland to fill the duke's place as chief
adviser. Diplomacy should take the place of ill-equipped and
rashly led expeditions, and diplomacy would neither be so
expensive nor so disgraceful as the braggadocio which had
come to grief so disastrously at Cadiz and Rochelle. There
was thus a prospect of calm weather for both king and Parlia
ment. Nevertheless the portents of renewed storm were not
wanting. If the murder of Buckingham had cleared the sky
somewhat in the region of foreign policy, the Petition of Right
had failed to sweep away the threatening thunderclouds that
hung over England itself. In that short interval of six months
the atmosphere became almost as electric as before. Questions
of religion and of tonnage and poundage still remained to
feed the elements of strife between king and subject. The
Commons had declared the exaction of tonnage and pound
age without consent of Parliament to be illegal, and many of
the merchants accordingly refused to pay it in spite of
Exchequer Court and Star Chamber prosecutions. The old
hue and cry against impositions was raised once more, and
Charles saw himself threatened not merely with the loss of a
large part of the revenue of the crown, but with sheer
impotence, apart from the goodwill of Parliament. He could
not maintain a ship or raise a man without this goodwill, if,
as the Commons contended and the merchants exemplified,
the Petition of Right covered the hereditary revenue of the
crown. In these six months Charles had, too, succeeded only too

164 Anti-Puritan Measures.
well in rasping the religious susceptibilities of the people.
He showed as little tact and sympathy in dealing with the
nation as with its representatives. For him both nation and
Commons ought only to submit to be governed by a well-
meaning monarch and be thankful. He could not possibly
see that if he espoused the religious opinions of men like
Laud, whose zeal for order and subordination in the Church
as well as the State so powerfully appealed to his narrow
mind, the nation had any right to complain and protest. A
wiser man would have perceived that religious partisanship
was as certain as forced loans to provoke both resentment and
resistance, and would rather have made it his business to
mediate or hold the balance between the two parties. Charles
was unfortunately totally unfitted for such a role. His piety
was unquestionable, but he made the mistake of thinking,
with Laud, that his piety was the norm of that of other
people, and would not be content to leave Puritans to be
saved in their own narrow fashion. Moreover Puritanism,
Calvinism was in his eyes an insubordinate religion, and this
fact entirely overcast its moral worth. It must, therefore, be
curbed, if possible suppressed, and in order to curb, suppress
it, he deliberately pursued a partisan policy. He lavished
patronage on the opponents of the Puritans, and he did his
utmost to oust these Puritans from the government of the
Church. He had deprived Abbot and placed his see in com
mission in October 1627. He now transferred Laud from the
diocese of Bath and Wells to that of London, in place of
Montaigne, who had licensed the sermons of his clerical
champions and whom he made Archbishop of York. He
made the notorious Montague, whom the Commons had
censured, Bishop of Chichester. Still worse, he not only
pardoned Mainwaring, but gave him the rich living which
Montague had vacated. Promotion was reserved for those
whose orthodoxy was certified by Laud, and no man on
Laud's list, against whose name a P. was set, could hope for
the recognition either of his zeal or his learning. Charles
identified himself with an ecclesiastical party even more
closely than his father had done. James had raged against
Nonconformists. Charles was determined to make war on all
the followers of Calvin, whether they conformed or not. For

" The Root of all Rebellion." 165
him and his clerical mentors " predestination was the root of
all Puritanism, and Puritanism the root of all rebellion" in
both Church and State. Had he used his authority to secure
toleration for those who differed from the Puritans in their
interpretation of the Creed, .his opposition to Puritan zealots,
to whom Arminianism was equivalent to apostasy from Pro
testantism, would have been at least enlightened, if unpopular.
His partisanship of Laud and his school made this opposition
both unenlightened and unpopular, and resulted in a regime
of intolerance and persecution in the Church which the
narrowest Puritan like Prynne could hardly have outdone.
It was futile to make a show of impartiality by officially
suppressing the books of Mainwaring and Montague. These
books were, as Rushworth points out, nearly all sold, and the
aim of the proclamation was rather to prevent the replies of
stout Puritan divines like Burton than to condemn High
Church doctrines. It was equally useless to seek to frustrate
Puritan rebellion against this partisan policy by enjoining
acceptance of the Thirty-nine Articles without dissent in any
particular whatsoever, prohibiting all doctrinal discussion in
the pulpit or the press on pain of ecclesiastical censure, and
restricting all consideration of religious questions to Con
vocation acting by the royal authority. In view of his
exclusive patronage of High Churchmen like Laud and
Montague, the deliverance was merely an injunction to submit
in these matters to the domination of the Bishop of London.
The Puritans, as the proceedings of the Commons were to
prove, were by no means minded to give away the battle so
cheaply. The Commons consequently reassembled on the 20th
January 1629 in a very querulous mood. Charles had in
conference with the Privy Council arranged the tactics to be
followed by his representatives and his supporters in the
House. They were to forestall inconvenient questions as to
the violation of the liberty of the subject during the recess by
urging an immediate grant of tonnage and poundage. Such
a grant, they were to represent, would put an end to all
prosecutions for refusal to pay. If the House should justify
such refusal on the ground that parliamentary sanction had
not been given to the levy, they were to admit the right of

1 66 Commons Denounce Illegal Taxation
Parliament to grant it, but to contend that, pending such
grant, the king was entitled to levy it as part of the hereditary
revenue of the crown. If the House persisted, they should
threaten dissolution.
This policy utterly failed to conjure the querulous mood of
the House. What, to begin with, about the printing of the
Petition of Right, with the answer which they had rejected as
insufficient, and the speech with which his majesty had closed
the session ? Had not the Petition itself been violated by the
imprisonment of merchants and the seizure of their goods for
refusing to pay a tax not sanctioned by Parliament ? Nay,
had not the goods of a member, Mr Rolles, been seized by the
customs officers for such refusal, and had not these pre
sumptuous delinquents insolently asserted that they cared
nothing for his privilege, and would do the same in like case
to the whole Parliament ? And most serious of all, had not
religion been endangered by the promotion of Papists in the
disguise of Arminians to the chief seats of authority in the
Church? On the 24th, Charles himself tried to stanch this
querulous spirit by a speech, in which he repeated what his
representatives had been instructed to say. He formally
admitted the right of Parliament to levy tonnage and
poundage, and he had only taken what meanwhile he con
sidered himself by precedent entitled to. Despite this
personal appeal, the majority decided that the state of
religion had a prior claim. The eternal interests of the
subject; urged Mr Rous on the 26th January, are of more
pressing importance than his earthly interests. Let them,
therefore, have a care of the poison of Arminianism. And
Arminianism, in Mr Rous' eyes, meant Romanism ; its
disciples were rank Papists. " An Arminian is the spawn of
a Papist," cried he, " and if there come the warmth of court
favour upon him, you shall see him turned into one of those
frogs that arise out of the bottomless pit." " It is apparent to
every man," said Mr Kirkton, " that new opinions are brought
in by some of our Churchmen to disturb the peace that our
Church was formerly in ; the meaning of it can be no other
than to bring in the Romish religion among us." Pym, who
followed, on the resumption of the debate next day, was
equally denunciatory of " the new Popery," and exhorted his

and Arminianism. 167
Calvinist brethren to stand by the Thirty-nine Articles and the
Lambeth Articles as the unequivocal doctrine of the Church
of England. He disputed the king's claim to restrict the
consideration of religion to Convocation. To the Parliament,
as representing the whole kingdom, belonged the right to
establish true and punish false religion. Had not Parliament
enacted laws for the trial of heretics ?
Once on the track of heresy, the zeal of the Commons
would brook no check, in spite of repeated messages from the
king in favour of tonnage and poundage, and the orators con
tinued to denounce the new Papists for several days. "We
do not doubt the king's piety," said Eliot, " but he has given
ear to evil ecclesiastical counsellors in this matter, and his
declaration is meant to give them all the sway in the Church."
Though he was careful to limit the right of Parliament to
legislation in support of the established Creed, he believed, like
Rous and Pym, that the Arminian party were the champions
of Popery. " It is not," contended he, " in the Houses of
Parliament to make a new religion, but it is the duty of
Parliament to confirm the religion we have, because it is true."
Let them, therefore, defend the old Creed as their fathers
received it. As usual, he carried the House with him, and on
the 29th the Commons agreed to profess in a formal resolution
the Creed as established by Parliament in Elizabeth's reign,
and to reject the doctrines of the Jesuits and the Arminians.
Undoubtedly a great deal of this impassioned oratory shows
more zeal than knowledge. To identify Arminianism with
Popery was pure rant. Arminianism was not necessarily a
Papist doctrine ; it was a perfectly reasonable reaction against
the ultra-dogmatism of Protestantism in its Calvinist form.
Nor were the High Churchmen whom Charles patronised, and
who favoured a more elaborate ceremonial in worship, Papists
in disguise. Laud's controversy with Fisher is sufficient to
prove that the Bishop of London, though a stickler for cere
monial and order and a bitter enemy of Puritan simplicity
and dogmatism, was as far removed from Popery in some
essential points as Pym or Eliot. Pym's contention that
Parliament had the right to legislate against heresy as well as
confirm the Creed was a most dangerous doctrine to that
liberty which the orators apostrophised so passionately in

1 68 Dangerous Assumption of Commons.
their speeches. They had a right to protest against the royal
patronage of men who were so intolerant of Puritans and their
views. They were themselves going a dangerous length in the
wake of the Inquisition in setting up a claim to lay down an
absolute law on matters of religious opinion and in branding
their opponents as Papists, because they might question
predestination as taught by Calvin, and insist, inter alia, on
calling the communion table an altar. Unfortunately, their
opponents were not a whit more tolerant or enlightened in the
maintenance of the particular nostrums which they equally
mistook for essentials of the faith. And it must not be for
gotten that some of their practices, or " innovations," as stout
Puritans called them, were borrowed from a ceremonial which
the Reformers had condemned as unscriptural or popish. To
those to whom the word of the Reformers was law, their
genuflexions and other formalities were rank superstition —
Judaic- Romish aberrations from the simplicity of Gospel
truth. The Commons strove to put in operation the inquisitorial
powers which they claimed by raking up evidence in support
of charges of Popery and heterodoxy against obnoxious clerics
like Neile, formerly Bishop of Lincoln and now of Winchester,
Montague, Mainwaring, and Cosins, a High Church zealot who
was disturbing the peace of the people of Durham by his
innovations. The prosecutions in the Star Chamber for refus
ing tonnage and poundage and other impositions aggravated
the friction. The aggrieved merchants had attempted to
recover the goods seized for refusal to pay by a writ of
replevin. They were baulked by the Court of Excheqer,
which decreed that goods so seized should not be given
up. The Attorney -General even ventured to summon
Mr Rolles before the Star Chamber, and though he
explained that he had made a mistake, the House chose
to interpret it as a deliberate affront, a device to draw
them off the scent of Arminianism. They might have put
an end both to the controversy and to the action of the
Court of Exchequer and the Star Chamber by passing a Bill
of Tonnage and Poundage, as May, Edmondes, and other
court members urged. They might, added Noy, insert a clause
nullifying the king's right to prosecute before a grant had

Commons and Customs Officers. 169
been made. But the majority held that the Petition of Right
had been violated, and were determined to know the reason
why. In their anger they sent the Sheriff of London to the
Tower for prevaricating in his answers to questions as to the
seizure of the goods of recusant merchants, requested the
judges of the Exchequer to restore their property, and
summoned the customs officers to their bar. The Exchequer
judges refused, and the customs officers adduced their com
mission under the Great Seal, which directed them to levy all
duties collected in the time of King James, in justification of
their action. Even privilege of Parliament, as in the case of
Mr Rolles, argued the court members, coiild not save the
recusant from paying revenue duties. This was stoutly con
tested by Mr Littleton, but the question of privilege apart,
there was not a syllable in the officers' warrant, retorted Mr
Noy, empowering them to proceed to the seizure of goods
against which the merchants had appealed. The House could
thus vindicate Mr Rolles' privilege as well as put a stop to the
proceedings against the merchants without coming into direct
conflict with the king. The officers, on the testimony of their
own warrants, had exceeded their powers, and should therefore
be condignly punished.
At this juncture Charles intervened. After consultation
with the Council on the 22nd February he directed Secretary
Coke to inform the House that the officers had acted by his
command. To punish them would, therefore, be to strike at
the king himself. Accordingly on the following day, after
Eliot had professed his confidence in the justice of the king,
and had renewed the demand for punishment, Coke rose " to
speak plain," as he put it. "His majesty," said he, "com
manded me to tell you that it concerns him in high degree of
justice arid honour that truth be not concealed ; which is, that
what they did was by his own direct orders and command, or
by the order of the Council board, his majesty being present,
and therefore would not have it divided from his act." This
was honest at least, and it put the Commons in a serious
dilemma. A Henry the Eighth in such a contingency would
have coolly sacrificed his officials, and thereby ingratiated .
himself with his Parliament. Not so the conscientious
Charles. His servants should not suffer for doing his ' will

170 Charles' Obstructive Tactics.
even if the Commons should refuse to pass the Tonnage and
Poundage Bill. It was chivalrous, but it was impolitic. In
championing his officers he should at least have waived his
claim to take tonnage and poundage without consent of Par
liament. He would have made his government both more
efficacious and more popular by yielding on points on which
it was evident that the Commons were actuated not by
factious opposition, but by a desire to safeguard the right of
the subject. His dogged refusal was followed by another
breach between crown and Parliament which was never to be
closed. In the face of this deliverance the House hesitated. Amid
loud cries of adjourn it resolved, in reference to Rolles' case,
that every member ought to have privilege of person and
goods, but, " the command of his majesty being so high," it
should defer further consideration of the subject, and ad
journed till the 25th. On that day Charles intervened with
a further adjournment till the 2nd March, and on that
memorable 2nd of March took place the wildest scene ever
witnessed as yet in the House of Commons. The Commons
knew that they were on the brink of a dissolution, and they
made haste to record their testimony against Arminianism
and arbitrary taxation in the form of tonnage and poundage,
in spite of the obstruction of the court party and its instru
ment the Speaker. Charles had resolved to thwart their
intention with another adjournment to the 10th March, and
had directed the Speaker accordingly. When, therefore,
Eliot began to speak in support of a declaration to this
purport, Finch interposed. " I have been commanded," said
he, "to adjourn the House till Tuesday sevennight." He
then put the question. " No, no," shouted a chorus of
indignant voices. It was their privilege to adjourn them
selves. Eliot again attempted to speak, and again the
Speaker adduced the command to adjourn. " I am com
manded," said he, rising from his seat, "by his majesty
instantly to leave the chair." Whereupon Hollis and
Valentine, who had placed themselves on either side of him,
seized each an arm and pushed him back into his seat. May,
Edmondes, and other members of the court party sprang
forward to the rescue, and a regular scuffle ensued. Again

Eliot's Passionate Outburst. I71
Finch rose, to be again pressed back by his two sturdy
guards. " God's wounds," cried Hollis, " you shall sit till we
please to rise." Once more Eliot rose and claimed the right
to be heard, and threw his declaration into the excited crowd
in front. "Read," shouted Hollis. "Read," repeated his
angry adherents in the struggling crowd around the chair.
" No, no," yelled their opponents. At this the excitable
Coryton lost all self-control and struck one of these protesters
a violent blow. More than one bellicose disputant clutched
his sword hilt, and fearing a pitched battle the more timid
members made for the door. It was promptly locked by
Sir Miles Hobart, who put the key in his pocket and refused
egress even to the Sergeant-at-Arms whom Charles summoned
with the mace. Still the Speaker protested the command of
his majesty, and neither threats, nor reproaches, nor reasonings
could move him. The House might call him to the bar, as
Eliot threatened, but he dare not disobey the king's express
command. " I will not say I will not, but I must say I dare
not." Finally Eliot gave it up as hopeless, and, whilst Finch
was awed by his sentries into crestfallen passivity, passionately
thundered forth what was to be his last speech in Parliament.
His voice hushed the recriminations of the disputants into
silence. In passionate language he attacked both Arminianism
and Popery. He made the mistake of identifying the two
once more, and abjured his hearers to resist this sinister
faction to the death. " Not to confess and not to endeavour
to prevent it were to be conscious and partners of the
crime . . . guilty of the breach and violation of all duty, our
duty towards God, our duty to the king, our duty to our
country." And who, more particularly, were those Jesuits in
disguise ? The Bishop of Winchester and the Lord Treasurer,
who was but building on the foundation laid by his old master,
the Duke of Buckingham. These men and their fellows were
working for their just reward. And what was that reward ?
" Whoever," cried the orator prophetically, " have occasioned
these public breaches in Parliaments for their private interests
and respects, the felicity has not lasted to a perpetuity of that
power. None have gone about to break Parliaments, but in
the end Parliaments have broken them. The examples of all
ages " (in England, he should have added) " confirm it. The

172 Defiance and Dissolution.
fates in that hold correspondency with justice. No man
was ever blasted in this House, but a curse fell upon him."
These illegal exactions, he concluded, are merely a device of
the Treasurer to ruin trade, and the ruin of trade will surely
lead to conquest and invasion. " It will lay waste our walls,
those wooden walls, our ships, that both fortify and enrich
us." In other words, England will speedily be at the mercy
of France and Spain.
There was both exaggeration and misrepresentation in
this speech, and Weston's son indignantly rebutted the
aspersions cast on his father. But it made a tremendous
impression. Again the cry of " Read," " Read," burst from
many lips. Still the Speaker was immovable, in spite of
Selden's reprimands and Heyman's reproaches, and the clerk
would not read. The uproar continued, and Eliot in disgust
had meanwhile thrown his declaration into the fire. Anon
above the din the knock of Black Rod thundered on the
locked door. Charles had besides summoned his guard to
force an entrance. In this emergency, Hollis, constituting
himself Speaker, improvised three resolutions, the substance
of what he remembered of the burned declaration. They
briefly declared all who favoured Popery or Arminianism,
advised or had any part in the taking of tonnage and poundage
without consent of Parliament, or paid such duties without
this consent, " capital enemies of this kingdom and common
wealth." Loud shouts of " Ay," " Ay," proclaimed the adher
ence of the majority ; the key was turned in the lock, and the
members rushed from the hall for the last time for eleven
years to come. Before the formal dissolution on the ioth,
Eliot and Selden and their chief abettors, to whom Charles
referred in his dissolution speech as " vipers," had been cited
before the Privy Council and sent to the Tower or other
prisons. It was a resentful act. That the king assumed a right
to order an adjournment, for the purpose of preventing an
unwelcome discussion, was a grave breach of the right of free
speech in Parliament, and Eliot was perfectly justified in
attempting to vindicate this right. He did not object to the
adjournment in itself. All he claimed was the right to read
his declaration and take the sense of the House on it before

Prosecution of Eliot and Others. 173
the Speaker carried out the royal command. The declaration
might be, and indeed was, the outcome of a misrepresentation
of the facts — the fruit of confusion, intolerance, ignorance.
But Eliot had a perfect right to test the mind of the House
on it. For the Speaker to refuse to do the will of the
majority, who supported Eliot, was to make himself the mere
tool of the king instead of the elected president of the House.
The rowdyism which ensued was no conspiracy to, thwart the
king, but a regrettable incident of the situation. Substantially,
therefore, the contention of the majority was defensible in the
interest of free discussion and parliamentary independence,
though their conduct was unseemly and their bigotry unen
lightened. Charles, however, saw in their action evidence of
a treasonable conspiracy and high contempt of his authority.
He did not pause to ask whether his partisanship of an
ecclesiastical party, as well as his proneness to high-handed
tactics in exacting taxes not sanctioned by Parliament, was
not responsible for the explosion. He was determined to be
avenged, especially on Eliot, who as a Member of Parliament
had declined the right of the Privy Council to call him to
account for his conduct, and he asked the judges whether in
the circumstances he was entitled to prosecute the offenders
for treasonable conspiracy and contemptuous slander. It was
not the first time during the last quarter of a century that the
judges were expected to answer in order to please the king,
and since the dismissal first of Coke and then of Crewe for
their independence of court control, men like Hyde were not
likely to be staunch champions either of the privileges of
Parliament or the liberty of the subject as against the king.
In answer to Attorney-General Heath's question they replied,
after some hesitation, that in the case specified the accused
could not justly plead privilege of Parliament. A Member of
Parliament, they contended, might, after the close of the
session, be prosecuted if he committed such an offence against
the king as that charged against the accused. A conspiracy
"to raise false slanders and rumours" against Privy Councillors
with intent to blast them and incite the hatred of the people
against them, and bring the Government into contempt, was,
they held, punishable by court of law (25th and 28th April).
The prisoners might allege that they were only performing a

174 Question of Liberty of Discussion.
public duty, but in those days to perform a public duty was
often a risky thing, and they must now reckon with the fact
that, if the majority of the Commons had appreciated their
public spirit, it was rank sedition in the eyes of the king and
the judges. So little of the spirit of a Coke was left in these
invertebrate dignitaries of the law that they even submitted to
the royal tactics for the purpose of evading bringing them up
for bail as long as possible, and then refused it in deference to
the royal wish. With such judges the result was a foregone
conclusion. Tried on the charge of conspiracy, calumny, and
assault, Eliot, Hollis, and Valentine were found guilty, in
spite of their disclaimer of jurisdiction, fined and imprisoned,
and debarred from release without an acknowledgment of
their guilt (27th January 1630). It was reserved for Eliot to
feel the unrelenting rigour of his persecutors. He lingered
on for nearly two years in the Tower, and on the 27th
November 1632 fell a victim to consumption in the forty-third
year of his age.
Parliament was not omnipotent, can never be absolutely
omnipotent to do wrong, for instance, and at this period
its powers were by no means defined beyond question. The
king still claimed to be supreme in the State, and this despite
the will of Parliament, if that will conflicted with his. But
leaving these contentious points aside, the plain question was
whether a member in the discharge of bis'public duty was to
have the liberty of expressing his convictions for what he con
sidered the good of the State, even if the Speaker should
adduce the royal command to the contrary. Suppose Eliot
were wrong as to his facts, suppose even that his convictions
were not really for the benefit of the State, why should he be
prevented from insisting on a hearing, even if this should dis
please the king ? If what he averred against the Bishop of
Winchester and the Treasurer were false, it could be disproved
in the course of the impeachment before the Lords, and Eliot
and his fellow-accusers shown to be in the wrong. Their
declaration would not undo the accused if they had right on
their side. How often might it occur to the king to interpose
his authority to baulk unwelcome discussion ? How often
had he tried to do so alreadyto the detriment of the common
wealth? To grant him this arbitrary right was really to

Eliot's Political Standpoint. 175
condemn Parliament to do nothing that might not commend
itself to his wisdom, and thus reduce it to slavery.
Eliot had been one of the boldest champions of the right
of impeachment, by which the Commons could control the
actions of ministers, in addition to the right to vote taxes, by
which they could at critical emergencies control the policy of
the king. The career of Buckingham had conclusively proved
how necessary and salutary was the exercise of this right.
The infatuation of James and Charles in patronising quack
statesmen of this type had strengthened the determination of
the Commons to protect the country from being the victim of
such quackery, and this infatuation was the real secret of the
revolt of the majority of the Commons on that memorable
2nd of March. To them, Charles, in continuing to be guided
by men who advocated an objectionable policy in the Church
and were ready to levy taxes without consent of Parliament,
was only going further on that fatal path that had brought the
country to disgrace and Buckingham to an untimely grave.
In taking his-stand against this policy, Eliot believed that he
was obeying the voice both of conscience and patriotism. He
might be narrow and unenlightened in his religious views and
prone to allow himself to be carried away by the impulses of
his high soul and the surge of his splendid rhetoric. He
was, for all that, the man that England could ill spare
in such a crisis of her history, the strong battler for the
power as well as the rights of Parliament. To him Parlia
ment was the incorporate wisdom of the nation, and to
its wisdom divine right, prerogative must submit. Its
wisdom might not always be beyond question, but in
view of recent history, it was far more likely in general to
do what was best for the nation than an opinionated king,
or a brilliant, but madcap favourite. It was essential that it
should have a will of its own to counteract the will of the king
and his ministers, if it deemed it necessary for the interest of
the country to do so. If it was the advocate of intolerance,
so was Charles, so was Laud on their side of the religious
question. It is, in fact, useless as yet to look for toleration,
though the logic of fact was beginning to force the question
on even Puritan minds like those of a Cromwell or a
Selden.

176 Eliot's Title to Gratitude of Posterity.
Herein lies the title of Eliot to the gratitude of posterity.
The man who went to the Tower for his faith in Parliament
and his opposition to prerogative, the man who in the Tower
languished out his last years of misery, was, though not
without qualification, the champion and the martyr of
political, if not of intellectual or religious progress. He
and his adherents had taken a mighty step forward in the
direction of making Parliament what it was ultimately to
become. If they had also seen that Parliament, too, must
change with its own advance, they would have come nearer
anticipating the future than they did. If Parliament was
really to represent the nation, whether in conflict or in
harmony with the king, it must cease to be merely an upper
and middle class oligarchy.
The prosecution of Eliot showed that Charles was resolved
to be master of the realm. He had struck down the pro
tagonist of Parliament and would never again, unless driven
by direst necessity, give Parliament a chance of disputing his
will. He would practically ignore all that it had contended
for since 162 1. There should be no more impeachments, no
more assertions of the right to control his policy, no more
invasions of his prerogative. Subsidies might be desirable,
but with an inventive Treasurer, he would learn to do without
them. He would, in fact, rule both Church and State as he
pleased. And if the subject should protest through the law
courts, the trial of Eliot and his fellow-prisoners had shown
that he could rely on subservient judges to prove him at all
costs in the right. England ceased for eleven years to be a
parliamentary monarchy.
He was still concerned about the restoration of the Pala
tinate, and negotiated and intrigued for the interests of his
sister and his brother-in-law, but he did not go further in
active co-operation than to allow Hamilton to help Gustavus
Adolphus, who had taken Christian's place as champion of
German Protestantism, with a force of English and Scottish
volunteers. The death of Frederick a few days after that of
Gustavus himself at Lutzen relieved him from further serious
worry about the matter. He championed the cause of his
nephew, as he had done that of his brother-in-law, but if he
refused to risk the summoning of Parliament for the sake of

Charles Concludes Peace. i77
the brother-in-law, he would not countenance such an idea for
the sake of the nephew.
Parliament being dismissed indefinitely, it was impossible
to carry on a treble war, and Charles had no longer the keen
ness of his earlier days to spur him on in the pursuit of an
impossible policy. Little more than a month after the dis
solution he concluded peace with France (14th April 1629).
Eighteen months later he came to terms with Spain (Novem
ber 1630). Christian of Denmark had already relieved him
from his subsidy obligations, which he had fulfilled so miser
ably, by the Peace of Lubeck (May 1629). The war had left
him, indeed, over head and ears in debt, but Weston's ingenuity
in exacting fines for the transgression of an obsolete law, which
rendered the owners of estates worth £40 a year liable to
knighthood, and which his subservient judges declared still in
force, brought in a large sum. Tonnage and poundage and
monopolies augmented this extraordinary revenue, and as
trade revived on the conclusion of the war, the exchequer was
soon fairly full, and the experiment of governing without Par
liament promised to be highly successful.
The lawyers and country gentlemen who had done
such stout battle for the rights and the power of Parliament
were, therefore, deprived of the chance of renewing the battle
on the score of the royal impecuniosity. Some of the lawyers
bowed to the inevitable, and took what preferment they could
screw out of the royal favour. Men like Noy, who became
Attorney-General in succession to Heath, — raised to the Chief
Justiceship of the Common Pleas, — and Littleton, who became
Recorder of London, forsook a hopeless cause and followed
Wentworth in quest of office. The spirit of Eliot seemed to
have disappeared with him in his prison, and if Laud had not
rasped the Puritan conscience by his innovations, there would
have been little trace of the fierce contentions of the first years
of the reign left in the land. Laud might even have continued
his domineering tactics without serious mishap to Charles or
himself, if Charles could have permanently kept the peace
with his neighbours. Wentworth, now a Privy Councillor,
ruled with a firm hand in the North, where insubordination
and revolt had often been a danger to the throne, until he
was transferred to a wider sphere as Lord Deputy of Ireland
VOL. III. M

178 Alliance with Spain against Dutch.
(1633). Weston, now Earl of Portland, continued to furnish
a working revenue.
Unfortunately, Charles found it impossible to maintain the
peace policy on which the permanent success of his personal
government depended. Richelieu's policy of aggrandising
France at the expense of both the Emperor and the King of
Spain led to an alliance between France and Holland for the
partition of the Spanish Netherlands. Charles saw in this
combination a menace to English interests, and as the result
of interminable intrigue and negotiation, he drifted in 1635
into an alliance with Spain and into hostilities with the
Dutch. To maintain a strong fleet in the face of the growing
naval strength of France and Holland was in any case a
patriotic necessity. The wisdom of plunging into a naval
conflict to prevent the Dutch from driving, with French
assistance, their hereditary foe out of the Netherlands was far
less apparent. The recent sorry achievements of English
admirals might have warned Charles to beware of risking their
repetition, and they certainly did not tend to make the nation
submit patiently to increased taxation. Charles, however, was
incapable of profiting by the lessons of experience to eschew
a course that was likely to rekindle the nation's antagonism.
Was he not "the sovereign of the seas," and had not the
Dutch encroached on his prerogative to rule the Channel and
the North Sea by the insolent assumption that they had as
good a right to fish and navigate these waters as their would-
be overlord ? He would teach them better manners, and in
order to be able to do so, his subjects must furnish a fleet
worthy of his sovereignty of the seas, though they were kept
in the dark as to the use to be made of it. To this end Noy
suggested a levy of ship money from the coast towns, and the
prosecution of all who had contravened the old forest laws.
Large fines were accordingly exacted from unlucky land
owners whose ancestors had either helped themselves or had
received grants of land from the royal forests. Writs of ship
money were directed to the coast towns (October 1634), and
these writs enjoined them to furnish ships for the king's
service, and assess the inhabitants for their equipment and
maintenance on pain of imprisonment for refusal. The object
of the levy was said to be for the repression of pirates and in

Ship Money and the Outcry against It. 179
defence of the kingdom, and as Charles appeared to be acting
within his legal rights, the towns, with the exception of
London, submitted without demur. Very different was the
reception accorded to the device of the Council in the follow
ing August (1635), extending the decree to counties and inland
towns as well. The argument in favour of this extension
sounded plausible enough. " As all are concerned in the
mutual defence of one another ... all might put to their
helping hands for the making of such preparations as may
secure this realm against those dangers and extremities which
have distressed other nations and are the common effects of
war whensoever it taketh a people unprepared, and there
fore ... his majesty doubteth not of the readiness of all
his subjects to contribute hereunto with cheerfulness and
alacrity." That all were bound to defend the country in circum
stances of danger was indeed a self-evident proposition. It
was not so evident that the country was in danger, and even
if its safety had been so gravely menaced as Lord Keeper
Coventry in an alarmist speech to the judges, in the preceding
June, sought to make out, it was still less evident that the king
might, therefore, levy a tax on the whole nation at the mere
fiat of his will. The conviction was widespread that if any
danger existed it was of the king's making, and that he had
only to desist from pressing an imprudent policy to avoid it.
The Lord Keeper's alarmist speech failed to work the nation
into a nervous fever. The nation saw in the device merely an
attempt to enable the king to continue to rule it without the
co-operation of its parliamentary representatives. There was
a general disinclination, and in many parts a flat refusal to
pay. " In all my life," wrote Sir Simmonds D'Ewes, " I never
saw so many sad faces in England as this new taxation called
ship money occasioned ; nay, the grief and astonishment of
most men's hearts broke out into sad and doleful complaints,
not only under the burden they felt at the instant, but with
ominous presage of the issue ; for many refused absolutely to
pay, and most that did pay it yielded out of mere fear and
harm of greater danger."
Both the disinclination and the refusal to pay were amply
justified. Relatively the sum asked was not exorbitant and

180 The Question before the Judges.
the immunity from parliamentary subsidies might fairly be
taken as compensation for the amount levied on each county.
It was not the hardship but the principle of the tax that made
many give grudgingly or refuse to give at all. If the king has
the right to tax his subjects on a plea of this kind, what, asked
men like D'Ewes or Lord Saye, becomes of the right of the
subject to be taxed only by common consent? Grant that
the demand is moderate, what is to hinder his majesty from
taking, on this plea, everything that we possess ? Where is the
guarantee of the legal protection of our property if Magna
Charta and the Petition of Right may be ignored in any
emergency which it may please the king to invent? Once
more, therefore, the appeal to the fundamental laws of
England was heard throughout the land. Despite this
appeal, Charles ventured on a third levy of ship money in
October 1636. To weaken resistance, he determined to get
an acknowledgment of the legality of his action from the
judges (February 1637). He asked them firstly, whether, when
the whole kingdom was in danger, he might issue these objec
tionable writs and by law compel obedience in case of dis
obedience, and secondly, whether he were not the sole judge of
such danger. Ten out of the twelve judges did as they were
expected ; they answered the double question in the affirma
tive. The protesters, nevertheless, stuck to their appeal to
the laws. " This tax of ship money," we read in one of their
remonstrances to the king, " is directly contrary to the funda
mental laws and liberties of your realm of England, which
your majesty, both in point of justice and honour, is obliged
inviolably to preserve according to the oath made to God and
your subjects at your coronation and your frequent printed
royal protestations since." They quoted chapter and verse
from the statute book to emphasise this proposition.
It was his majesty's fond belief, notwithstanding, that he
was not, in the exercise of' his royal judgment, amenable to the
statute book, and what was more, some of the judges did not
scruple to declare it plainly in his name. " There was a rule
of law," retorted Sir R. Berkeley, judge of the King's Bench, to
Richard Chambers, one of the most fearless of these protesters,
who had already signalised his staunch opposition to tonnage
and poundage, " and a rule of government, and many things

The Fleet Covers Itself with Ridicule. 181
which might not be done by the rule of law might be done by
the rule of government." In other words, Charles might
impose on his royal actions as little legal restraint as he
pleased. The time was, however, long past for such a doctrine
to pass unchallenged, with a Petition of Right to appeal to,
and the wretched performances of the fleet which Charles
equipped and maintained, in defiance of the appeal to law, did
not tend to make his illegal action more popular. Not only
did his foreign policy vacillate from month to month ; not
only was it uncertain to himself as well as to the nation what
he really meant to accomplish by this great armament aim
lessly sailing about the Channel and the North Sea. Despite
all the magniloquent talk of the sovereignty of the seas, his
admirals only made the burden more galling by their ridicu
lous attempts to cover themselves with glory. During the
summer of 1635 Lord Lindsey, indeed, paraded the Channel
and the North Sea in heroic mood, but at the end of his
portentous cruise he had only succeeded in capturing one
Dutch man-of-war and compelling a number of merchant
vessels of various nationality to dip their flags in token of the
English supremacy of the seas. The second writ of ship
money enabled the new admiral, the Earl of Northumberland,
to demonstrate with equal heroism, during the following
summer, on the French coast, in the Channel, and in the
North Sea, capture a stray Dutch privateer, and compel a
Dutch herring fleet, which ventured to fish off the east coast
of England and Scotland, to pay a few shillings of tribute per
head to his sovereign. In virtue of the third writ of ship
money, he repeated these high exploits in the summer of
1637. The sovereignty of the seas, which Charles made such
exertions to vindicate, was evidently a very cheap honour, and
even from the point of view of practical results, was not likely
to commend itself to Englishmen as a pretext for exacting an
unjustifiable tax. If Charles might thereby maintain a fleet
to make Englishmen ridiculous in the eyes of their neighbours,
might he not equally plausibly thereby maintain an army to
crush their liberties by means of a military despotism ? So
thought Charles' autocratic, energetic Lord Deputy of Ireland,
to whom he now turned for guidance in matters of foreign
policy. Wentworth told him that he had as good a right to

1 82 Hampden Appeals to Legal Right.
exact such taxes for the payment of an army as for the payment
of a navy, that army to be used, of course, only to impose on
the nation Charles' and Wentworth's beneficent intentions.
It was the perception of this truth that steeled others who
had worked with Wentworth in Parliament, in opposition to
royal despotism, to resist in spite of the decision of the judges.
Among these champions of legal rights versus illegal govern
ment John Hampden was one of the staunchest. Hampden,
a Buckinghamshire proprietor, refused to pay the twenty
shillings for which he was assessed, and determined to test the
legality of the charge. His case was accordingly tried before
the twelve judges in the Exchequer Chamber in November-
December 1637. Oliver St John, one of Hampden's two
counsel, who spoke first, admitted that all were bound to share
in the defence of the kingdom in circumstances of danger, and
that it was the right and duty of the king to take measures to
this end. It was not a question of the king's right to defend,
but of the mode in which he sought to exercise it. He could
only exercise it through Parliament, because he could only
raise such taxes by means of Parliament. He must, more
over, respect the rights of property, and his claim thus to tax
was incompatible with these rights. Parliament alone could
safely be entrusted with the exercise of this right. If the
danger were such that it was impossible to summon Parlia
ment, he might act for the time being in virtue of the necessity
of saving the commonwealth from destruction. But, ordinarily
and in the case in point, this objection could not hold. These
contentions he supported with elaborate legal erudition and
much logical force.
It is not a question of property, contended Littleton, now
Solicitor-General, in reply, but a question of paying a tax for
a great national end. It is, in fact, a question of necessity,
and the levying of the tax, far from endangering the property
of the subject, in reality confirms his possession. It would be
an ill day for England if, in circumstances of extreme danger,
there should be no salvation except in Parliament. On this
point of necessity the Solicitor-General accordingly proceeded
to enlarge in an alarmist style that deceived nobody, and to
draw on his stores of legal learning as a set-off to those of
St John.

Arguments For and Against. 183
It was not difficult for Mr Holborne, Hampden's' second
counsel, to show in reply that this was no such case of
necessity, in spite of interruptions from the Chief Justice
Finch. He not only denied that the kingdom was in such
danger, but he quoted from the writ to prove that there was
no mention at all of any instant danger. The fleet was only,
in fact, to be ready fully two hundred days after the issue of the
writ. Where then was the necessity of ignoring Parliament and
taxing the lieges at will? He denied, too, in toto that the
king could dispense with Parliament in this matter, even if he
judged the kingdom in extreme danger. In case of a sudden
invasion necessity was the chief law, and the law of the land
recognised this by empowering the subject, as well as the
king, to do whatever he considered necessary for the safety of
the State. In all other cases the king has no more right to
tax than what the law allows him.
In reply to this and much more in the same strain^ the
Attorney-General Bankes appealed to the absolute power in
herent in the king, who is not limited as to its exercise by Parlia
ment. Practically Parliament had no right to interfere or the
people to complain of whatever use the king, in his supreme dis
cretion, should make of the royal authority. 1 1 is the part of the
subject, he concluded, to obey the king and ask no questions.
However antagonistic to the constitution such reasoning, the
Attorney-General had no difficulty in quoting many pre
cedents that seemed to prove Charles in the right and
Hampden in the wrong. Needless to say, his reasoning was
that of the advocate, not of the constitutional historian, and
while it might convince a majority of the judges, it could
convince neither the constitutional historian nor the taxpayer.
Seven of these judges, including Finch, Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, accordingly voted for Charles, five for
Hampden. Needless to say, too, the vast majority of the
taxpayers were on the side of the minority, and the arguments
of Bankes and of Finch, who, in giving his decision, reiterated
even more strongly the absolute right of the king as against
the Parliament, did not tend to make the further levy of ship
money less obnoxious. Absolutist doctrines were no longer
championed merely by a faction of sycophant divines ; they
were professed by the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice

184 Crusade against Puritanism.
themselves. Charles had attained the maximum of his royal
self-consciousness. Parliament had reached the nadir of its
humiliation and impotence. " Those foundations of right, by
which men valued their security," says even Clarendon, "...
were never more in danger to be destroyed."
The irritation at arbitrary taxation was intensified by
the crusade against Calvinism and Puritan nonconformity in
the Church. Laud's influence was increased by his election
as Chancellor of Oxford in 1630, and when, three years later,
he replaced Abbot as Archbishop of Canterbury, the High
Church reaction threatened to sweep Puritanism from the
land. The archbishop professed toleration in his own
autocratic fashion, and sometimes rebuked the more extreme
and indiscreet of his disciples, but while prepared to acknow
ledge the Roman communion as a Christian Church, he
would not allow the Puritans to object to his own interpreta
tion of the Articles, or dissent from observances which they
regarded as popish and anti-Christian. He carried out . a
systematic crusade against the lecturers of his diocese who
inculcated Calvinism on the Sunday afternoons, and whose
liberty of utterance was subjected to a series of strict regula
tions. For the repression of dissent he had the powers of the
Star Chamber and the High Commission at his disposal, and
he did not scruple to mak^e very ample use of them, as obstruc
tive dissenters like Prynne, Bastwick, Burton found to their
cost. Even under his Calvinist predecessor his influence had
made itself felt in the Star Chamber in favour of severity.
One of these early victims of his severity was Alexander
Leighton, father of the future Archbishop of Glasgow, a
graduate of St Andrews University, a doctor of medicine of
Leyden, a theologian of no mean acquirements, a preacher of
some note, and one of the most notorious pamphleteers of the
day. Leighton was, at least, courageous. He believed that
it was his mission, Scotsman and Presbyterian though he
was, to proclaim to the English nation that its Episcopal
establishment was root and branch anti-Christian. This he
did in a philippic (1629) entitled "Sion's Plea against the
Prelacy." The assurance of the doughty Scot is in truth most
extraordinary. Episcopacy, he does not hesitate to assert,
"cannot consist in a nation with soundness of doctrine and

Leighton's " Plea against Prelacy." 185
sinceritie of God's worship, holiness of life, the glorious power
of Christ's government, nor with the prosperitie and safetie of
the Commonwealth." To make himself more emphatic, he
underlines some of these terms, more especially soundness of
doctrine and the safety of the commonwealth. The hierarchy,
it seems, has been the cause of all the bloodshed, foreign and
domestic, which has desolated the commonwealth since the
year of our Lord 600, and if it be not abolished in favour of
the Presbyterian system, our audacious scribe sees no hope of
peace and prosperity for the future. If only Parliament will
smite down this infernal hierarchy, then the millennium will
come, that is to say, "a glorious prosperity shall rest upon
Zion's king, state, and commonwealth." Such propositions
Leighton proceeds to prpve with all the argumentative power
of his countrymen, and with no little learning. It would be
waste of time to follow him. We have outlived such extra
vagances, and can only marvel that any " canny " Scot could
so far belie his native sagacity as to endanger his liberty and
his ears by ventilating such audacities south of the Border in
the age of Laud. The only admirable thing is that he had the
courage to sacrifice his liberty and his ears rather than stifle
his conscience. He had, at all events, the satisfaction of
having his ears cropped and his nose slit, in addition to being
condemned to pay a fine of £10,000 for his pains. The
ecclesiastical members of the Court of Star Chamber were all
the keener for his punishment inasmuch as he managed, in
spite of his extravagant reasonings, to make an occasional
hit. There were discrepancies of view among the leaders of
the High Church party, and to quote one against another was
very provoking. Most aggravating, too, to be asked whether,
in spite of the claim that Episcopacy was by divine right, they
did not derive their Episcopal authority from the king.
The repression of such a book, which struck right at the
root of the Episcopal system, was defensible on grounds of
self-preservation, if the barbarous punishment of its author
appears to us altogether detestable. This could hardly be
said for the equally barbarous treatment of a Puritan moralist
like Prynne, who wrote a ponderous volume against the stage,
and was otherwise obnoxious for his Puritan opposition to
High Church practices. His Oxford scholarship and his legal

1 86 Prynne as Puritan Moralist.
training did not prevent him from wandering into the wildest
denunciations of such iniquities as dancing and acting. His
onslaught on the histrionic and terpsichorean arts might partly
be explained by the low condition of the stage and the license
of the age. A scourge was sorely needed, but in " Histrio-
mastix, or The Scourge of Players" (1632), Prynne's morbid
fancy fairly raved at large. He not only denounced the stage
and its votaries in the most violent terms, but inveighed in
equally fierce style against magistrates and princes who winked
at or patronised the monstrous evil. The Attorney-General
could easily pick out of this ponderous fulmination passages
to prove its author guilty of aspersing everybody, from the
king and the queen downwards, who danced or went to the
theatre. They were helping the devil to do his work, were
in fact children of the devil, since stage-playing and dancing
were originally the devil's inventions. Mr Prynne in his
frenzy saw the devil at work in every form of amusement that
offended his Puritan soul. There was not a little justification
for his sagacity, considering the deplorable morals both of
plays and players in those days. But to identify Charles with
Nero and the queen with Herodias, by implication at least, if
not directly, was really too wild. For talking thus wildly his
ponderous production, which few could have had the patience
to read, was adjudged libellous, scandalous, and seditious, and
its author sentenced in the Court of Star Chamber to a fine of
£5,000, imprisonment for life, expulsion from Lincoln's Inn,
and the cropping of both his ears in the pillory (February
1634). Such ranters were doubtless a nuisance then, as they
would be now, but in our days we are content to laugh at
their eccentricities, and we should never think of punishing
such eccentric persons by sending them to prison and
cropping their ears. In this respect Laud and his fellow-
judges were as misguided as the laughable victims of their
cruelty and enmity.
Men like Leighton and Prynne, rabid and eccentric though
they were, had many supporters. Men like Laud could not
see that persecution was the best means of increasing their
number. And they did not merely strike at extremists, who
challenged persecution in this provocative fashion and might
fairly expect to take the consequences. They struck at all

Persecution of the Puritans. 187
who had conscientious objections to Laud's High Churchism,
and would not submit to his policy of uniformity. It might
be true, as Laud asserted, that unity in the Church could not
long continue if uniformity was shut out at the Church door.
A certain uniformity is necessary to the existence of a great
corporation like the Church of England. Where he erred was
in thinking that unity could be maintained by persecution,
and that his idea of uniformity was the essential one. Only
a zealot could expect the Puritans to accept doctrines and
practices which they held to be both unscriptural and illegal.
To force the stauncher sort of these Puritans into line with
himself was the surest way to breed dissension and aggravate
disunity. It was the application of this policy that drove men
like John Winthrop to follow the Pilgrim Fathers of "The
Mayflower" across the Atlantic, in order that they might
worship God in their own Puritan fashion. It was the appli
cation of this policy that brought upon those who preferred to
stay at home fine and imprisonment by the Star Chamber or
High Commission for refusing to conform to the Laudian
innovations. Laud's elevation to the highest post in the Church inten
sified the spirit of persecution. King James' shrewdness
would hardly have misled him so far as to intrust supremacy
to one whose very nature it was, equally with the narrowest
Puritan, to foment strife over things religious. King Charles
was in this respect as purblind and self-sufficient as in more
mundane matters. Because Laud agreed with his policy of
unquestioning obedience in Church as in State, he was, there
fore, the best man to fill the vacant archbishopric. There was
no thought of the impolicy of such an appointment. " My
Lord's Grace of Canterbury," said Charles radiantly to the
Bishop of London, on hearing the news of Abbot's death,
" you are very welcome." Whether he was as welcome to the
nation at large was a question which it never occurred to him
to ask. Whatever his majesty did must, ipso facto, be wel
come to the nation, since it was impossible for his majesty to
do wrong. It was an infatuated conclusion, but it was shared
to the full by " My Lord's Grace of Canterbury," who was as
convinced of the wisdom of imposing his will on the Church
as a Hildebrand himself, though so unlike a Hildebrand in his

1 88 Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury.
exaltation of the royal authority, and as impatient of opposi
tion as the narrowest Puritan doctrinaire. Even Clarendon
admits his proneness to see in every one who differed from
him not merely a personal enemy, but an enemy of religion
as he conceived it. He could as little understand or make
allowance for conscientious opposition as the more extreme of
his Calvinist opponents. "When he came into great authority,
it may be, he retained too keen a memory of those who had
so unjustly and uncharitably persecuted him before, and I
doubt not was so far transported with the same passions he
had reason to complain of in his adversaries, that, as they
accused him of Popery because he had some doctrinal opinions
which they liked not, though they were nothing allied to
Popery ; so he entertained too much prejudice to some
persons, as if they were enemies to the discipline of the
Church, because they concurred with Calvin in some doctrinal
points ; when they abhorred his discipline and reverenced the
government of the Church and prayed for the peace of it with
as much zeal and fervency as any in the kingdom ; as they
made manifest in their lives and in their sufferings with it and
for it." With such an opinionated individual in supreme
command, there could be no sympathy with conscientious
scruples, let alone mere prejudice in matters ecclesiastical.
The Church must be ruled like an army. It must yield
unquestioning obedience to the voice of command as uttered
from Canterbury. The voice of congregation or clergy must
be hushed if the archbishop and his bishops speak the decisive
word. Laud's motto as Archbishop of Canterbury, like
Wentworth's as Lord Deputy of Ireland, was "Thorough,"
and in their letters these two congenial spirits are found
exhorting each other to be faithful to it in the service of
God and king. In both, the striking characteristic is an
untiring, unquestioning devotion to a system, an ideal in
Church and State.
With men of more pronounced Puritan views such un
questioning obedience was a sheer impossibility. They would
rather lose their ears and their liberty, and face the dangers of
expatriation across the Atlantic. Under Puritan auspices
abuses had, doubtless, been allowed to creep in which called
for summary redress. Clergy and churchwardens had allowed

Reform and Repression. 189
the churches to fall into disrepair, had neglected to care for
the churchyards. Slovenliness and irreverence, at all events,
were no essentials of piety, and in making war on them Laud
did not deserve the vituperation of his opponents. Inefficiency
and immorality, too, found in him their sworn foe, vice in high
as well as low no mitigation in his eyes. The visitation of his
province, carried out by his Vicar-General Sir Nathaniel Brent
during the years 1634-37, brought to light many such abuses.
Their drastic reformation was altogether salutary. But the
vicar-general was a High Church crusader as well as a
reformer, and relentlessly exercised his powers on con
scientious Puritans as well as inefficient boorish ministers.
Whoever among the clergy or even the bishops (Williams,
Bishop of Lincoln, for example) declined to place the com
munion table in the form of an altar at the east end of the
church, or bow during service at the mention of the name of
Christ, or conform strictly on all points to the Prayer Book
and the Canons, was liable to excommunication, suspension,
and trial before the High Commission. The earnest preachers
of the Gospel, to whom these things were rank Popery, suffered
equally with the hireling who neglected his office. Depriva
tion and imprisonment were the reward for such conscientious
refractoriness. It is usual for the champions of Episcopacy to
descant on the tyranny of the Presbyterian ministers in the
maintenance of discipline. To those who have read the
records of the drastic proceedings of Laud's vicar-general and
his henchmen of the High Commission, or the Acts of the
High Commission Court of Durham, the regime of the High
Church zealots, who punished dissent from their practices
with fine, imprisonment, and sometimes mutilation, outdid in
severity that of any Scottish presbytery. Despite this tyranny
of conscience the vicar-general met with fierce opposition, and
the irritation was widespread not merely among the clergy,
but among the laity of all classes. The tyranny of the Scottish
presbytery was at least in keeping with the sentiments of a
majority of the people ; that of Laud and his abettors grated
on the consciences of both clergy and people.
The irritation was quickened by the archbishop's latitu-
dinarian attitude on the question of Sunday observance. He
advised the king to issue anew the Declaration of Sports,

i9° Puritan Denunciation of Prelates.
which authorised popular amusements on that day, and was
directed to be read in all churches. It was a bid for popular
favour, and was, moreover, a much-needed antidote to the
morose and sometimes hypocritical tendency of the Puritans
to magnify, in their turn, the letter at the expense of the
spirit. Nevertheless, Laud failed utterly to win popularity
for himself or his system. What the people thought of him
and his system is apparent in its attitude towards the more
harshly treated of his victims.
Among these the indomitable Prynne figured once more,
and he had on this occasion in Dr Bastwick and Mr Burton
two other equally staunch witnesses to the truth as it appeared
to the Puritan mind. Prynne's prolific pen had not been idle
in the interval since his ears had been cropped by the High
Commission in 1634. He had dipped it once more in the
gall of his ire to denounce the Book of Sports and the popish
practices of the bishops. Burton had been equally vituperative
in the pulpit, and Dr Bastwick, whom Clarendon calls " a half
witted, crack-brained- fellow unknown to either of the uni
versities or the college of physicians," was a match even for
Prynne in the use of strong language. To him the prelates
were " devils in surplices," " proud, ungrateful, illiterate asses,"
" pole cats, stotes, weazels of the Church and the State." He
mingled, however, some coarse humour with his objurgations.
Witness the following, written to a fellow- Puritan in Decem
ber 1636 : — " If you see Father William of Canterbury, His
Holiness, and William of London, Magnificus Rector of the
Treasury, my wife desires they would be godfathers to her
child, and if you can obtain this favour at their hands at her
behalf, I am almost confident I can prevail with their old
mistress, the whore of Babylon, to be godmother, with whom
they have so long committed spiritual fornication, and then
we shall have such a christening as has not been in Europe
this many a day."
For such effusions the trio were sentenced by the Star
Chamber to a fine of £5,000 each, imprisonment for life, and
the loss of their ears. Here is the scene as depicted in a con
temporary narrative, and the most significant feature of it is
the fact that these men, extremists though they were, were
regarded as the martyrs of a popular cause. " Friday last Dr

Popular Sympathy with Persecuted. 191
Bastwick, Mr Burton, and Mr Prin stood in the pillorye in the
pallace of Westminster. As Doctor Bastwick came from the
Gatehouse towards the pallace, the light common people
strewed herbes and flowers before him ; Prin and hee stood
upon one scaffold, and Mr Burton upon another by himselfe.
They all three talkt to the people. Bastwicke said they had
collar days in the king's court, and this was his collar daye
in the king's pallace ; he was pleasant and witty all the tyme.
Prin protested his innocency to the people of what was laid
to his charge. Mr Burton said it was the happiest pulpit he
had ever preacht in. After two hours the hangman began to
cut off their eares. Hee began with Mr Burton's. There were
very many people ; they wept and grieved much for Mr
Burton, and at the cutting of each eare there was such a roar
ing as if every one of them had at the same instant lost an
eare. Bastwicke gave the hangman a knife and taught him
to cut of his ears quickly and very close, that he might come
there noe more. The hangman burnt Prin in both the
cheekes, and as I heare, because he burned one cheek with a
letter the wronge way, he burnt that againe. Presently a
surgeon clapt on a plaster to take out the fire. The hangman
hewed off Prin's eares very scurvily which putt him to much
paine, and after he stood long in the pillorye before his head
could be gdtt out ; but that was a chance. The reason why
Prin was so ill used by the hangman was, hee had promised
him five pieces to use him kindly the time before, which he
did, and Prin had given him half a crowne in five sixpences ;
but now the hangman was quit with him, for it is said that
Prin faynted in the pillorye after the execution. The cause
was his standing in the pillorye soe long after. The humours
of the people were various. Some wept, some laughed, and
some were verie reserved."
The expression of popular sympathy which this disgusting
scene at the pillory drew forth was renewed on the road to
their several prisons in various parts of the country. Libels
and pamphlets gave vent to the popular detestation of their
persecutor, and the secret press continued to issue these
bitter denunciations, in spite of a rigorous press law that
threatened the printers with the rod and the pillory. It was
for a false charge of circulating some of these forbidden

192 Widespread Opposition to Coercion.
pamphlets that John Lilburne, anothor of these stout recusants,
who would rather die than do what his conscience forbade
him, endured the lash and the pillory. These coercive
methods only stung such men into revolt, and prepared for
their author a terrible retribution when the nation should at
last find the opportunity of uttering its resentment through
Parliament. His opponents were by no means all of the
stamp of a Prynne. They included the finer spirits of the
nation, men like John Hutchison and Milton, types of that
higher Puritanism, whose souls revolted against injustice,
force, and persecuting formalism, and who, like many more,
were not extremists, but laid more stress on moral earnestness,
even if it were to some extent misguided, than on a strictly
regulated worship. It included, too, men like John Hales
who "would rather renounce the Church of England to
morrow if it obliged him to believe that any other Christians
should be damned." It included, further, men like Sir Sim-
monds D'Ewes, the plodding historian, to whose industry we
owe a very valuable account of the parliamentary history of
Elizabeth's reign, and a still more valuable manuscript account
of the debates of the Long Parliament, of which he was a
member. Sir Simmonds could, as he tells us, " honour and
esteem a virtuous or a learned Papist who, being educated in
that religion, supposeth it to be the truth." But even D'Ewes
could see in Laud and his party only betrayers of Pro
testantism. The belief, as harboured by men like D'Ewes, that the
Laudian innovations were intended to prepare the way for the
return of England to Rome, added poignancy to the opposi
tion. The belief might be mistaken, but it was none the less
intense. Charles, in truth, held communication with Rome
through Panzani and Conn, papal agents at the queen's
court. There was considerable talk of the reunion of the two
Churches ; but there is no historic proof for the suspicion that
Laud's High Churchism was a masked crusade in favour of
Romanism. The papal supremacy was incompatible with a
system that exalted the royal authority and raised itself on
that authority. The divine right of kings and the divine
right of bishops clashed too much with the divine right of the
pope for Charles or Laud to show any anxiety to admit it.

Was Laud a Romanist? 193"
Besides, both king and archbishop had too many conscientious
scruples to certain parts of the Romish ritual and doctrine to
discard Anglicanism for Romanism. All this may appear
conclusive to the historian ; to the opponents of Laud it was
simply incredible. The Puritan, it is to be feared, was as
ready to believe all evil of the High Churchman as the High
Churchman was of the Puritan. A man of rational mind
would have found cause to condemn much that was irrational
on both sides. The student of political progress must, at any
rate, give the Puritan opposition the benefit of being, in this
struggle, on the side of resistance to tyranny, if he could also
wish that these Puritans had been more rational and tolerant
in the maintenance of their opinions.
SOURCES. — Lords' Journals, iii. ; Commons' Journals, i. ;
State Papers (1628-29, 1629-31); Epherneris Parliamentaria,
containing a True Relation of every day's Proceedings in the
Parliament (of 1629); Constitutional History, viii. ; Parlia
mentary History, ii. ; Rushworth's Collections, i. and ii. The
usual accounts of the session of 1629, based on Rushworth,
who drew on the Diurnal Occurrences of every day's Proceed
ing in Parliament (20th Jan.-ioth March, published in 1641),
the Constitutional and the Parliamentary Histories, require to
be corrected and supplemented by the Verulam MS., described
by Mr Bruce in Archaeologia, vol. 38, Nicholas Notes, the Har-
leian MSS., and Forster's Life of Eliot, vol. ii. Mr Gardiner,
who made use of these sources in his History of England
(vol. vii.), has given the fullest and most accurate narrative of
the session. State Trials, ii. ; Strafford Letters, i. and ii. ;
Laud's Works, ii.-vi. ; Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of
the Puritan Revolution (1889); Clarendon, History of the
Rebellion, i. (1826); Autobiography and Correspondence of
Sir Simmonds D'Ewes, edited by Halliwell (1845); White
locke, Memorials of English Affairs (1682) ; Act3 of the High
Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, edited by
Mr Longstaffe, Surtees Society (1858); The Correspondence
of John Cosin, edited by Ormsby, Surtees Soc, pt. i.' (1869) ;
A. Leighton, An Appeal to the Parliament, or Sion's Plea
against the Prelacie ; Prynne, Histriomastix (1632); Docu
ments relating to the Proceedings against W. Prynne, edited
VOL. III. N

194 Sources of Chapter IX.
by Gardiner, Camden Soc. (1877), to which is prefixed a Life
of Prynne by Mr Bruce ; Hacket, Life of Bishop Williams ;
Neal, History of the Puritans, edited by Toulmin, ii. (1794);
Grey, An Impartial Examination of the Second Volume of
Neal's History (1736) — it is by no means "impartial," how
ever. Gardiner, History of England, vii. and viii. (1891);
Nugent, Memorials of John Hampden (5th ed., 1889) ; Hut-
ton, History of the English Church from the Accession of
Charles I. (1903).

CHAPTER X.
The Subversion of Presbytery and the Establish
ment of Prelacy in Scotland (1600-1625).
IT is time to shift the scene to Scotland, and the transition is
a most significant one in the history of political liberty in this
now united realm. At this period Scotland, though regally
one with England, was in every other respect a foreign
country. James' enlightened attempt to bring about a closer
union had made shipwreck on the rock of English jealousy
and prejudice. There was, indeed, sympathy on religious
grounds between the Puritans of the southern and the Presby
terians of the northern kingdom. Both owned Calvin as
their master ; in doctrine the Church of England was practi
cally uniform with the Church of Scotland, and the more
advanced Puritans were eager to assimilate the Scottish
Church government. The Hampton Court Conference dashed
this Puritan dream, and James' dream of a closer political
union proved still more illusory. Despite his majesty's
assiduity, the two kingdoms remained estranged in sentiment
and interest. The House of Commons, largely Puritan
though it was, refused, on national and commercial grounds,
to hold out the right hand of political fellowship to the
Scottish Parliament, and James' patronage of his countrymen
only intensified the general dislike of Scotland and Scotsmen
throughout his reign.
Events were, nevertheless, surely, if slowly, drawing the two
peoples into line in a common resistance to arbitrary govern
ment, and in little more than three decades after the failure of
James' unionist scheme, the two peoples are found co-operating
in a union for political and religious ends, very different from
those contemplated by their unionist ruler. To this union, in
active resistance to the will of an arbitrary king, Scotland
contributed the initial impulse. It was Scotland that taught

196 Importance of Transition to Scotland.
England how to deal effectively with a monarch who trans
gressed the constitution in Church and State. England had
been content with remonstrances, petitions, appeals to law,
and had utterly failed to prevent thereby its king from
governing it as he pleased. It had refrained from carrying
opposition beyond Parliament and the law courts. The few
individuals who had dared to challenge the exercise of the
royal authority with the pen had been promptly and severely
dealt with by the Star Chamber and the High Commission.
The nation at large saw no alternative but submission, and
succumbed to the arbitrary exercise of authority in the hope
that Parliament might ere long find the opportunity of vindi
cating its rights by speeches and Bills on behalf of liberty.
Scotland, too, when its turn came, protested, petitioned,
appealed to law. But it did not stop short at mere oratory
or penmanship. When protests and appeals failed, it drew
the sword in true native fashion to enforce the national will.
Redress our grievances, or we shall fight for it, was the deter
mined ultimatum which confronted a king whom the submis
sive attitude of Englishmen had deluded into the belief that
Scotland might be governed as England had been. Scotland
was to prove in the most unexpected fashion that it would
not be thus governed.
The shifting of the scene to the north of the Tweed is thus
of cardinal importance to the adequate 1 understanding of the
renewal of the constitutional struggle south of the Tweed.
Scotland might be, and indeed was, in some respects, as
Englishmen believed, and sometimes said in their most
offensive manner, inferior to England in general civilisation.
It might be derogatory for the more affluent and refined
nation to unite on equal terms with the poorer and the ruder.
Scottish poverty and ruggedness were the proverbial joke of
the fastidious, overbearing southerner. The Scottish Parlia
ment might be a tame assembly compared with the great
council of lords and commoners at Westminster. The
Scottish nation, especially the aristocratic portion of it, was
doubtless the more lawless, and therefore the less advanced of
the two. But it was superior to England in what we should
now call public spirit, but what was then, as often as not, the
spirit of faction. But the spirit of faction was capable of great

Scottish Pugnacity. 197
things if it should be focussed into activity for some really
national cause, as the War of Independence and the drama
of the Reformation had shown. Once convinced that the
interests of the nation, whether spiritual or secular, were
at stake in some great question, the nation would not hesitate
to champion them even at the risk of civil war, rebellion.
The Englishman in similar circumstances might call for a
Parliament ; the Scotsman, not having the same faith in his
Parliament, would simply sign a " Bond " of common defence,
rally round his leaders, and fight it out till he was victorious
or beaten in the field. This pugnative spirit had often
plunged the country into anarchy, and had made it from time
immemorial one of the most difficult to govern. To defy a
weak or an obnoxious king was a common occurrence in
Scottish history. The defiance was not always, not usually,
it might be, for the benefit of the people. It might be the
device of selfish, factious nobles, whose local tyranny was
more terrible than that of any king could have been. But if
once roused in a cause that was not local or personal, but
national, it was capable of championing, achieving rights that
concerned all and appealed to the interest or the conscience
of all. And it was a foregone conclusion that if the King of
Scotland ventured to rouse and attempted to browbeat the
contentious spirit thus united, he must succumb in the quarrel.
James knew from experience what he was talking about when
he resisted Laud's aggressive arguments in favour of imposing
the English ecclesiastical system on his Scottish subjects on
the ground that "he did not know the stomach of that
people," and gave some pertinent illustrations from his own
knowledge. Charles was less knowing, and Charles' ignorance
was to cost him dear. To this perfervid spirit is due the dis
comfiture of his personal rule not only in Scotland, but in
England. The object lesson in resistance to arbitrary govern
ment which it gave to England, was not lost upon the Long
Parliament. The conflict between king and Parliament in Scotland was
largely a conflict over ecclesiastical questions. The Scottish
Parliament was as submissive under James VI., till towards
the end of his reign at least, as the English Parliament had
been under Henry VIII. It met merely to vote the Acts

198 Ecclesiastical Factor in the Struggle.
presented to it by an autocratic Government, and it was not
till well into the reign of Charles that its restiveness became
a factor in the constitutional struggle that engrossed both
kingdoms. It was from the General Assembly that James
had to fear opposition to his will. Hence his persistence in
seeking to transfer the government of the Church from that
redoubtable body to bishops, whose dependence on himself
ensured their subservience. He succeeded for the time being
in imposing the Episcopal order on the Church, and in mani
pulating through it the Assembly. But the demand for a
free Assembly was never relaxed by that section of the clergy
who resisted his tactics, and whom he sought to outwit and
browbeat by turns. It continued to testify and suffer for its
convictions throughout the reign, to pit the rights of con
stitution and conscience alike against the royal will arbitrarily
exercised. Thus, though the conflict was mainly ecclesiasti
cal, it had, as we shall see, a political side. The Presbyterian
antagonism to James was, at the same time, a vindication of
Acts of Parliament and Assembly, and the principles they de
fended went far beyond the scope of mere questions of Church
government or ritual. Whilst in England the struggle with
the Stuarts was mainly political, with an ecclesiastical bearing,
in Scotland it was mainly ecclesiastical, with a political bearing.
That the Scottish people would submit indefinitely to
take their Church government by royal prescription was ex
tremely doubtful. The Scottish Reformation had been carried,
as we have seen in the preceding volume, in the face of the
opposition of Queen Mary and her mother, the Queen Regent.
In this respect it differs from the English Reformation, which
was the work of the monarch rather than of the people. It
had culminated in revolution in the State as well as in the
Church. It not only deposed the pope ; it resulted in the
deposition of the reigning monarch. And in keeping with its
divergent political character was the more democratic texture
of its ecclesiastical polity. Under the leadership of Knox's
successor, Andrew Melville, and in spite of the repressive
tactics of James, it ultimately asserted its identity with the
Reformed Churches of the Continent, in the establishment, in
1592, of the Presbyterian system of Church government
elaborated in " The Second Book of Discipline."

" The Second Book of Discipline." 199
" The Second Book of Discipline " has a political as well
as an ecclesiastical interest. The organisation of the Church
was distinctly democratic, and this democratic organisation
was to render yeoman service on behalf of political as well
as religious rights during the long struggle with Stuart
absolutism, in which both Church and State in Scotland was
involved for fully a hundred years. The " Book of Discipline "
derives, it is true, the ecclesiastical authority from God, not
from the people. " This power ecclesiastical is an authoritie
granted by God the Father, through the mediator Jesus
Christ, unto His Kirk gatherit, and having ground in the
Word of God," But this power is not invested in any earthly
head, in any absolute pope, or priestly order, or supreme
secular ruler. Christ alone is head of the Church, and He has
confided its government to its office-bearers. It is, moreover,
different from the civil power, though both the civil and
ecclesiastical government is of God and tends to advance the
same end, viz., God's glory. The Church is a spiritual insti
tution, and is therefore subject only to Christ. It dare not be
subject to the State, though as citizens its office-bearers owe
obedience to the laws and are amenable to civil jurisdiction.
Similarly even "the magistrate," from the king downwards
apparently, is, as a member of the Church, subject to its
spiritual jurisdiction. Nay, as magistrate, it is his duty to
aid the spiritual power in the due performance of its functions
by the punishment with civil penalties of the transgressors of
its ordinances. The Presbyterian claim to absolute ecclesiastical power
sounds thorough enough. It could not possibly be expressed
in more emphatic language. The Kirk, as a spiritual institu
tion, is subject to no power on earth, and requires the secular
power to abet its sentences. It might be the voice of
Gregory VII. that speaks, and the polity of the "Book of
Discipline" has been denounced as pure popery in disguise.
Such an interpretation is not a fair one, and it certainly
was not the intention of Melville and his associates to estab
lish a pure ecclesiastical despotism over the civil power. Nor
does the system embodied in the " Book of Discipline " neces
sarily lend itself to this conclusion. The office-bearers of the
Church are, as subjects, explicitly under obedience to the

2o' Character of Presbyterian System.
civil jurisdiction. No priestly character invests them with
immunity from the jurisdiction of the magistrate. These
office-bearers — ministers, doctors, elders, deacons — though
they fill a divine office, are no sacred caste. All its office
bearers, it is explicitly stated, are " ministers," whatever their
particular functions — whether to preach, or teach, or
administer discipline, or care for temporal things — whether,
that is, they are pastors, or doctors, or elders, or deacons.
" For albeit the Kirk of God be rewlit (ruled) and governit
be (by) Jesus Christ, Who is the onlie King, Hie (High)
Priest, and Heid thereof, yet He uses the ministry of men as
ane most necessar middes (means) for this purpose. . . . And
to take away all occasion of tyrannie, He willis that they sould
rewl (rule) with mutual consent of brethir (brethren) and
equality of power, every one according to their functiones. . . .
Therefore all the ambitious titles inventit in the kingdome of
Antichrist and in his usurpit hierarchie . . . aucht (ought) all
utterlie to be rejectit." Such a declaration is as far as the
poles asunder from popery. Even the most reforming of the
reforming councils which sought to limit the usurpations of
Rome never dared to decree the absolute equality of the
office-bearers of the Church, lay as well as cleric. Further,
these office-bearers, and more especially the pastors, are placed
in office not by any ecclesiastical or secular magnate, but by
the voice of the people. They are elected " by the judgment
of the eldership and the consent of the congregation." No
one shall be intruded in any Christian office " contrar to the
will of the congregation "... or " for any warldlie respect."
They are called by God, but must be duly elected by man.
The elders, whose office it is to co-operate with the minister
in maintaining discipline, and the deacons, to whom the
pecuniary affairs of the congregation are entrusted, are likewise
chosen by the congregation. Further, these popularly chosen
officials — ministers and elders — compose the various courts
which govern the Church. These consist of Presbyteries for
the government of smaller areas, Synods for that of larger
areas or provinces, the General Assembly for the whole
Church. Of bishops or other functionaries who are not
elected by the popular will or assume a higher dignity or
title than their brethren, the " Book of Discipline " will know

Democratic Features. 20 ~
nothing, though its authors were not yet prepared to abolish
the office root and branch.
To call an organisation which, though claiming divine
authority, practically rests on the popular will, popish is to
abuse language. It is in reality the antithesis of popery. In
the first place, the congregation elects its office-bearers,
whether preachers or elders. Then these popularly elected
office-bearers or their representatives are conjoined with those
of a certain number of other congregations to form a presby
tery, which has the general oversight of the churches within
its bounds. A certain number of these presbyteries, again,
form a synod, which possesses a certain jurisdiction over the
churches of the province. Finally, the presbyteries send their
representatives to a General Assembly to legislate for the
whole Church. The democratic feature of this organisation is
patent. It represents a popular Church, popularly governed
through its office-bearers, who can only hold office by the
popular will. Moreover, this organisation is the result of full
discussion and is adopted after the members of the Church
by their representatives have debated and freely voted every
point of it. Between the Church of a Hildebrand and the
Church of an Andrew Melville there is all the difference which
exists between autocracy and democracy. Understand by
this democracy the members of a society which aims at being
co-equal with the Christian manhood of the nation, and we
have the Kirk of Scotland as adumbrated in " The Second
Book of Discipline."
So much granted, it must be admitted that this organisa
tion might, nay did, become, in the hands of bigoted
presbyters, an instrument of moral tyranny. The " Book of
Discipline" is nothing if not dogmatic. The Kirk is based on
the Bible, as all Kirks are more or less, and its office-bearers
claim to possess " the power of the keys " over soul and
conscience. They exercise the right of excommunication,
and require the magistrates to give efficacy to their judg^
ments. " The spiritual rewleris (rulers) should requyre the
Christian magistrate to minister justice and punish vyce, and
to maintaine the liberty and quietness of the Kirk within
their boundis. . . . Hel aucht (ought) to assert, mentaine,
and fortifie the jurisdiction of the Kirk," — without, however,

202 Moral Tyranny of the Kirk.
usurping "onie thing that pertains not to the civil sword."
The ministers are the infallible judges of "libertie," and
there is not even a suspicion that dissent from the Kirk is
allowable. Such dissent is " schism " and " rebellion." The
will of God, as interpreted by the Kirk, is absolutely binding
on every person in things moral and religious. Its office
bearers are judges, not only of what is " sound doctrine," but
of what is sin, and in the category of sins, "dancing" is
especially branded as worthy of excommunication. The
trial and burning of witches is, as we know from the records
of the time, a duty which they inculcate with horrible
emphasis on the powers that be. They are prone to
mistake sanctimonious whining for true piety, as even the
racy diary of James Melville occasionally proves. They have
no conception of toleration, within or without the Church, of
opinions that may differ from the hard and fast system of
doctrine and government deduced by the Reformers from the
Bible. All such they would range under the general and
opprobrious term of " blasphemie." Their notion of liberty of
opinion or conscience is of the narrowest range, and we can
understand and sympathise with the revulsion from this
narrow moral tyranny in favour of the human side of life.
The age was narrow, and fiercely dogmatic, and the " Book of
Discipline" bears in this respect ample trace of the age
in which it was produced. Moreover, the moral laxity
bequeathed by the old Church to its successor inclined these
stern presbyters to ignore the fact of Christian liberty as
well as emphasise Christian obligation, and to magnify things
indifferent, or even positively innocent, into sins. Scotland,
to judge from the records of social laxity, of rampant lawless
ness, needed a stern moral discipline, and the Kirk supplied
it in the form of a vigorous inquisition into the; morals of its
members. But it was too Judaic in its conception of life
and religion, too prone to see dangerous maladies in trifling
ailments, to seek a remedy in mere mechanical prescrip
tions — in excommunication and ostentatious parade of
repentance, tending to beget hypocrisy and phariseeism.
These godly men, to judge from their sermons, were very
ready to rebuke and condemn the sinner ; they were not too
conspicuous for moderation and charity in so doing. There

Its Services to Political Liberty. 203
is too much trace, from this point of view, of the tyranny
of the Kirk from the days of Andrew Melville to those of
the heresy hunters of more modern times. In certain con
tingencies it is even conceivable that the civil power, in
resisting the demands of this popularly constituted Kirk,
might be defending liberty against tyranny. It might not
always be certain that in demanding, in the name of God,
the submission or co-operation of the civil power in carrying
out its sentences, it was expressing the divine will. This
claim to a monopoly of the divine will on the part of
any ecclesiastical organisation may in fact be as dangerous
to the liberty of the subject as the dicta of an absolute
earthly potentate.
On the other hand, these stern presbyters, as the repre
sentatives of a popularly constituted Church, were an insuper
able obstacle to the permanent establishment of Stuart
absolutism in Scotland. They might recognise in a general
way that the secular power is of God, but they emphatically
repudiated the royal assumption of supremacy over the
Church, and insisted on the fact of the limitation of the royal
power. In resisting this supremacy as claimed by James,
after the model of the Elizabethan Church government,
they were defending, in a fashion, liberty of conscience
against the crown, and were nurturing in the people the spirit
of resistance to arbitrary government in the State. The
Scottish crown had been impotent enough, except during
brief intervals of energetic government, in its struggle with
a turbulent nobility. This rebellious aristocracy had effec
tively prevented th,e establishment of a Tudor, or a Valois,
or a Habsburg despotism in Scotland. It had served, in this
respect, the function of a representative Parliament, whose
development it had arrested. But the Scottish nobles were
the fosterers of anarchy rather than of liberty, the devotees
of faction and self-interest rather than of constitutional
progress. And just at a crisis when the Scottish monarch, in
the person of James VI., was striving to realise the impossible
destiny of his race, and establish an absolute regime on the
model of France or Spain, he was challenged by a Church
which appealed not only to the Bible, but to the popular will
in defence of its liberties and rights. This challenge is of

204 Political Tendency of Presbytery.
the utmost significance in the history of political progress in
Scotland. James might have mastered the turbulent nobles ;
he might have made a plaything of the Scottish Parliament.
He had a far harder task in tackling the Kirk, and crossing
swords with men like Andrew Melville. He ultimately
partially succeeded ; but the success was not permanent, for
behind a Melville was the popular will that finally swept his
ecclesiastical system and his race from the country. The
bishop, in James' eyes, stood for royal supremacy, submis
sion to the royal will ; the presbyter for rebellion and
republicanism. His interpretation of the political genius
of Presbyterianism was not quite correct, for the Scottish
Presbyterians preferred legitimate monarchy to a Puritan
republic. But when he looked across the Border at the
ecclesiastical establishment of Elizabeth, James might well
conclude that Episcopacy was the only religion compatible
with his high notions of divine right. Presbyterianism was
indubitably, at this period at least, more favourable to political
liberty than prelacy. Elizabeth's bishops were crown
functionaries, whose bounden duty it was to do their
sovereign's bidding asj supreme governor of the Church.
They were the agents of an imperious will, were bound to
preach submission to that will, however arbitrary or oppres
sive its exercise. Church and Government were allies in
the common endeavour to stifle Puritan self-assertion.
The people must accept the religion of the prince what
ever their objections on conscientious and scriptural grounds.
North of the Border, where the presbyter holds ecclesiastical
sway, the prince had no right to prescribe to the Church or
force his will on the people in matters of religion. If he
should make the attempt the watchmen on the walls of the
Presbyterian Zion would blow the alarm-trumpet at once and
defy him in the name of the Lord.
Such is the political bearing of the system of Church
government which had received the sanction of the king and
the Scottish Parliament in 1592. This consummation was the
result of the manful battle maintained by Andrew Melville
and his fellow - presbyters against James' predilection for
Episcopacy and the tyrannical Acts, such as those of 1584, by
which he had striven to vindicate his absolutist supremacy over

Efforts of James to Subvert Presbytery. 205
both Church and State. Their triumph was, however, destined
to be but temporary, and in the interval between 1592 and
1603 James made considerable headway towards the goal of
subverting the Presbyterian in favour of the Episcopal system
of Church government. At a General Assembly, held at
Dundee in May 1 597, he succeeded in obtaining the appoint
ment of a number of clerical commissioners to advise him in
ecclesiastical affairs. The next step in the evolution of these
commissioners into bishops was to confer on them the right of
sitting in Parliament as the representatives of the Kirk, and
this right received the sanction of the General Assembly which
met at Montrose in March 1600. It declined, however, to
deviate so far from Presbyterian parity as to confer on these
clerical representatives in Parliament the title of bishop, and
it took care to assert explicitly, in a number of " caveats," its
supreme authority over them both as representatives and as
ministers of the Church. Six months later James gave a
striking commentary on these precautions and on his own
double-dealing, all through these three years of tortuous
statesmanship, by nominating three of them Bishops of Ross,
Aberdeen, and Caithness respectively. In spite of all the
specious assurances which had secured him the support of a
pliable majority against the minority, led by Andrew Melville,
his set policy was the subversion of presbytery, and the
adroitness of these tentative efforts was only paralleled by
the adroitness which in the later years of his reign enabled
him completely to compass his purpose.
As a preliminary to this consummation he determined to
ignore the General Assembly until he could make sure of its
amenability to his will. From 1602 to 1606 he found pretexts
for evading its annual meeting. It was, for instance, desirable
in the public interest to intromit all ecclesiastical discussion
till the union negotiations should be completed by the two
Parliaments. To this reasoning the Presbyterian leaders
demurred. They were warmly in favour of a closer union,
but they protested that the Assembly should have the oppor
tunity of safeguarding the interests of the Kirk as by law
established, and urged that these rights were as deeply con
cerned as those of the State in this negotiation. They
appealed to the rights of free assembly, guaranteed by the

206 Procrastinates Summoning Assembly.
Act of 1592, in vindication of their demand for an annual
meeting. Did not that Act explicitly state that the Assembly
should convene once a year at least, and that the place and
date of its next meeting should be fixed by the king or the
Assembly before the close of the session ? They contended,
therefore, that the action of the king in proroguing it from
year to year according to his own discretion was illegal and
arbitrary. They claimed, moreover, the right to free discussion
in the name of Christ as well as of the law, and in insisting on
this right they were in their own fashion championing the
rights of conscience against unwarranted coercion. Their dis
content was heightened by the suspicion that James' action
covered some sinister design against the ecclesiastical con
stitution. They were undoubtedly justified both in their con
tention and their suspicion. The fact was that the king and
his bishops were quietly conspiring to undermine that con
stitution. Men like Montrose and Dunbar, the Chancellor
and the Treasurer, and Gladstanes and Spottiswood, whom
James nominated Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow
in 1604, were, as their correspondence amply shows, intriguing
their hardest during these four years to circumvent the
defenders of the Kirk. Though they succeeded by their
underhand tactics in postponing the Assembly from year to
year, they did not succeed in throwing dust in the eyes of
men like the Melvilles and their like-minded brethren. They
loudly protested in their synods and their pulpits against this
high-handed policy of procrastination, and when their protests
proved ineffectual they determined to vindicate their right of
free assembly in their own fashion.
Accordingly on the 22nd July 1605, the date to which the
Assembly had been prorogued by royal authority in the
previous year, a few commissioners from presbyteries in
various parts of the country convened at Aberdeen. Despite
the inhibition of the royal commissioner, Sir Alexander
Stratoun of Laurieston, on pain of rebellion for disobedience,
they elected John Forbes as their moderator, constituted
themselves as the lawful Assembly, protested their right so to
do, fixed the date of the next meeting, and then adjourned in
obedience to the royal command, as signified by the com
missioner. James was furious at this act of defiance which

Prosecutes Individual Presbyters. 207
threatened to set the country in a blaze and upset the intrigues
of his henchmen the bishops. He ordered the arrest of the
audacious presbyters, and six of them, who refused to ac
knowledge their offence, including Forbes, the moderator,
minister of Alford, and Welch, minister of Ayr, were arraigned
before the Privy Council. They declined to acknowledge its
jurisdiction on the ground that they were amenable in ecclesi
astical matters to the General Assembly alone. What,
demanded the Council, you decline the jurisdiction of the
king ? No, returned these staunch presbyters, we only decline
your jurisdiction in this matter, and claim to be tried by the
only court to which we are accountable in matters of doctrine
and discipline. Moreover, the king could pursue them if he
considered himself aggrieved by their conduct in the discharge
of their duties as ministers through the General Assembly,
" We declyne not his majestie and you his counsell as judges
to us in anie case wherein his majestie and yee may be judges
to all other subjects in the land ; neither yett declyne we the
king's majestie as judges to us in ecclesiasticall or spiritual
maters, he judging conjunct with the General Assemblie ; but
heartily submit all our causes belonging to anie of our spiritual
effaires to his majestie, whenever God shall give occasioun that
he shall be present with the General Assemblie."
The claim was doubtless a bold one in view of the fact
that they were charged with the crime of rebellion. But they
disclaimed the charge of rebellion, denied the correctness of
Laurieston's version of the facts, and maintained that they
had only done, in virtue of their commissions, what' they were
legally entitled to do. It is, indeed, difficult to see how, in
view of the Act of 1592, their meeting to constitute an
Assembly on the specified day, or their persistence in naming
such a day on the refusal of the commissioner to do so, could
be an act of rebellion. It certainly was an act of defiance to
the royal authority as then exercised, but the exercise of this
authority was entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act of
1 592, which was clearly intended to ensure the regular meet
ing intromitted by James for three years. So clear is the
statute on this point that it entrusted to the Assembly itself
the right to fix the date of its next session in the absence of
the king or his commissioner. The accused were, therefore,

208 Their Defence and Punishment.
only carrying out the spirit of that statute. Moreover, they
felt, and indeed contended, that they had no other alternative
if they were not to surrender the rights of the Kirk to the
king, make these rights dependent on the exercise of the royal
discretion. What the exercise of the royal discretion meant
was unmistakable. If the ministers would consent to carry
out his majesty's ecclesiastical policy, and merely vote what
king and bishops might concoct, the Assembly might meet
as often as it pleased. If not, it was virtually to be sup
pressed. In resisting this assumption these men were, there
fore, standing for principles as precious as those for which the
English Commons contended when they appealed to law and
privilege against the arbitrary infringement of them by the
crown. They might be an insignificant fraction, but their
attempt to vindicate a free General Assembly was only the
more spirited on that account, and the future was to show
that with this fraction, and not with the majority of their
more compliant brethren, lay the cause of liberty against
arbitrary government. For this spirited action they were,
nevertheless, meanwhile summarily dealt with. Their declina
ture was adjudged treason, and on this charge of treason they
were tried before the High Court of Justiciary at Linlithgow,
found guilty by means of the most scandalous tactics, and
banished the land. What the people thought of their treason
is evidenced by the outburst of sympathy which greeted their
removal from the court. " God grant," cried the bystanders,
"that the king be in no greater danger than from these
traitors." Equally arbitrary were the tactics adopted for silencing
those of their brethren who sympathised with their public
spirit and joined in the demand for a free Assembly. Among
these were the two Melvilles, and as long as the indomitable
Andrew and his nephew remained at large, James could not
feel sure of his ground in Scotland. He therefore summoned
the Melvilles and six other leading ministers in September
1606 to a conference on ecclesiastical questions. The con
ference took place at Hampton Court in presence of the high
dignitaries of Church and State. Melville was as outspoken
and immovable at Hampton Court as he had been at Edin
burgh, Falkland, or Perth, and showed the English peers and

Andrew Melville at Hampton Court. 209
prelates how a doughty Scottish divine could hold his own in
public dispute with even his king. He refused to condemn
his recalcitrant brethren, and ended in characteristic fashion
by bursting into a fierce denunciation of the Lord Advocate,
whom he called in Greek " the accuser of the brethren."
"What is yon he says?" asked James of the Archbishop of
Canterbury. " I think he is calling him out of the Revelation
the Antichrist ; nay, by God, he is calling him the verie devil."
The other ministers proved equally uncompliant, and repeated
their demand for a free General Assembly.
This second Hampton Court Conference did not add to
James' laurels as a disputant. He was forced to retire from
the strange scene baffled in his purpose of overawing his old
antagonist, and, if we may trust the scribe, the honours of the
encounter remained, in the eyes of the English peers present,
with Melville and his fellow-presbyters.
Equally futile was the effort of the Scottish Privy Coun
cillors in London to extract either a recognition of the royal
supremacy in things ecclesiastical or a condemnation of the
Aberdeen Assembly. In vain, too, the endless services and
sermons for their edification on the merits of Episcopacy
versus Presbytery. Unhappily, Melville allowed his irritation
at what were to him popish mummeries, with which they were
bored or irritated for weeks on end, to overflow in a Latin
epigram which fell into the king's hands. Two days later
(30th November) he was summoned before the English Privy
Council. He acknowledged the authorship of the objection
able lines, but pleaded in explanation the indignation he felt
at being forced to countenance such " vanity and supersti
tion." He had himself intended to present the epigram to
the king as a protest against these things. When Bancroft
ventured to rebuke him, he turned upon him in his fiercest
vein as a persecutor of the brethren and a favourer of Anti
christ. Seizing his lawn sleeves, he called them "Romish
rags," and challenged him as the traducer of the Scottish
Kirk. " If," cried he, " you are the author of that book
' English Scotisising for Geneva Discipline,' I esteem you the
capital enemie ©f all the Reformed Kirks of Europe, and will
profess myself enemy to you and all such proceedings to the
effusion of the last drop of my blood." This was violent
VOL. III. O

210 Scotland's Debt to Melville.
enough, but Bancroft had not been a courteous or fair-minded
controversialist, and Melville was only paying back an old
score. His violence did not, however, tend to gain him the
sympathy of the Council. He was placed under arrest in
charge of the Dean of St Paul's, and on refusing to retract
his opinions and acknowledge the royal supremacy, subse
quently committed to the Tower. Here he remained for four
years, when he was permitted to retire to Sedan to spend the
remainder of his life as professor of theology in the Protestant
university of that city.
James' notion of free discussion was certainly peculiar,
and his treatment of Melville and his brethren, who were
likewise kept under restraint, pending the royal pleasure, for
merely refusing to be converted to Anglicanism, was nothing
short of scandalous. " They were," as one of their friends
in Scotland bitterly reproached the Bishop of Dunblane,
" written for (summoned) to reason, but the end proved
prison." Despite his choleric extravagance, Scotland owes
much to the independent assertive spirit which made Melville
the foe of royal dictation in matters of conscience, the ever
watchful opponent of the arbitrary courses to which James
was so much addicted. It was well in an age which had
inherited the flattery and servility, so dear to an Elizabeth and
so congenial to her successor, that there was such a resolute
voice to utter the message, " Thus far and no further." He
might have done so less offensively, more courteously on
occasion. Let it serve as his apology that in such an age it
is only the rugged, pugnative temperament that can suffice
for such a mission as his. Had the nature of him been less
impulsive, less self-reliant, he could have made no impression
at a time when the defence of conscience depends upon being
fully persuaded in one's mind. One may have no sympathy
with much of his dogmatism on mere points of ecclesiastical
polity, but his dogmatism was, nevertheless, a salutary anti
dote to the arbitrary instincts of a monarch who believed that
he was the wisest man on earth, and that all who differed
from him were rebels and traitors. This belief undoubtedly
tended to the establishment of a despotic regime in both
Church and State, and in Andrew Melville it found one of
the most strenuous antagonists. Choleric and impulsive as

Assembly of Linlithgow. 211
he was, his stout words in defence of his convictions and in
defiance of authority arbitrarily used have in them the ring of
a powerful individuality, which irripressed itself on his country
men and bequeathed its inspiration to their resistance to
coercive methods in Church and State. History may find
reason to dissent at times from his dogmatism, to regret that
he enthralled himself too much in a narrow system which
could be inimical enough to liberty of conscience in the wider
sense. But history has to take its heroes as it finds them,
and be thankful for even an inadequate defence of a great
cause. It can ill spare such a man as Andrew Melville, even
if it may take exception at times to both his manners and his
opinions. The gag thus effectually applied to their more influential
opponents, James and his bishops could now proceed to
business. They convened, in December 1606, an ecclesiastical
convention, but they took care that it should not be a free
Assembly. To this end James did not scruple to write letters
to the presbyteries, directing them to choose certain ministers
of whose subservience the bishops had assured him. These
ministers, to the number of about 130, with between thirty
and forty of the nobility, constituted what is dubiously
known as the Assembly of Linlithgow. It was rather a
conclave of royal nominees, • selected expressly for the pur
pose of doing the royal will, and it would have required an
astonishing amount of sophistry on the part of the king and
his bishops to see in this conclave either a legal or an
adequate representation of the Kirk. Some of the royal
nominees had not even received the commissions of their
presbyteries ; others had been inhibited by their presbyteries
from complying with the royal injunction. If the Assembly
of Aberdeen was a fiasco in Episcopal eyes, the Presby
terians were amply justified in seeing in this conclave a
travesty of a freely-elected ecclesiastical parliament, and in
protesting against this infringement of the Kirk's liberties.
The Assembly proceeded, nevertheless, with due unanimity
to modify the government of the Kirk in accordance with
his majesty's wishes. James did not venture to ask it to
substitute prelacy for presbytery. He was content to com
pass his purpose by instalments, and he accordingly dis-

212 Bishops as Perpetual Moderators.'
claimed any intention of altering the constitution of the
Kirk. His aim, on his own profession, was merely to heal
its divisions, not to encroach on its liberty. As an addi
tional inducement, he was ready to sacrifice the Papists
whom he had formerly protected from the zeal of their
Presbyterian opponents. He only wished to engraft the
Episcopal order on the Presbyterian system in the interest of
efficiency. His nominees took him at his word, and while
recognising the bishops as perpetual moderators of presby
teries and synods, they expressly retained the official
organisation of the Church in the form of kirk-sessions,
presbyteries, synods, and General Assembly. Moreover, they
debarred these Episcopal moderators from '¦ usurping and
exercising any tyrannous and unlawful jurisdiction and power
over their brethren," and subjected them to the censure and
control of the General Assembly.
Though the bishops solemnly bound themselves to con
form to these conditions, the whole transaction strikes the
scrutinising reader as a mere manoeuvre to compass a far-
reaching policy, and these good presbyters must have been
innocents indeed, if, on the strength of the assurances of
James' spokesman, the Earl of Montrose, they failed to per
ceive the drift of this policy. Very different was the attitude
of the large majority of the synods and presbyteries. They
not only saw in the action of the Linlithgow Assembly a
device to hoodwink them into surrendering their rights ;
they refused to acknowledge its legality. Even Archbishop
Spottiswood confesses that the unanimity of the Linlithgow
conclave was by no means reflected in the country. The
appeal to the liberties of the Kirk resounded throughout the
land. Presbyteries and synods declined to receive their new
moderators, and asserted their right to appoint one of their
own members as before, in spite of the commands and
threats of the royal commissioners. The spirit of revolt
had spread from the leaders to the rank and file, and if
James had been as wise as he professed to be, he might
have read in this outcry the condemnation of the craft and
force which it pleased his sapience to regard as high
statesmanship. Such lessons were thrown away on the
Solomon of his age, and once more conscientious scruples

The Assembly of 1610. 213
to surrender the rights of the Kirk were branded as rebel
lion in "letters of horning" against the recalcitrant presby
teries, with penalties suitable to the offence. In consequence
thereof " rebel " ministers were haled before the Privy Council
and sent to Blackness and other prisons to learn the virtue
of obedience to a despotic government.
These drastic tactics were seconded by the astuteness of
the bishops, who succeeded at a conference at Falkland, and
a second Assembly at Linlithgow in 1608, in arranging a
compromise for the time being. Both sides agreed to waive
contention for the sake of peace, and to refer the points in
dispute to a Commission. This arrangement sounded feasible
enough ; in reality it proved one more device on the part of
these shrewd Episcopal tacticians to outwit the opposition.
" It was the policie of the aspiring bishops," complains
Calderwood, " to cry Peace, Peace ! and to crave silence of
their opposits, when in the meantime they took advantage
as occasioun served." The Commission succeeded by a show
of impartiality in maintaining the delusion until a General
Assembly should give a final decision. James seconded its
tactics by postponing the meeting of the Assembly from time
, to time, while coolly augmenting the jurisdiction of the bishops
by instituting two courts of High Commission with autocratic
powers, and sending Episcopal missionaries like Dr Abbot,
the future Archbishop of Canterbury, to enlighten his be
nighted Presbyterian subjects on the merits of Episcopacy.
At length, in 1610, he allowed a packed Assembly at
Glasgow, under the presidency of the , Earl of Dunbar, to
go through the farce of enacting both the royal supremacy
in things ecclesiastical and the fully fledged Episcopacy
which was to uphold it. The General Assembly was indeed
to convene annually, and possess the right to censure and
deprive the bishops, subject to the royal assent, but the right
to summon it was vested in the king, and every minister
was bound on oath to recognise his majesty's ecclesiasti
cal supremacy. If James thought good to exercise his
supremacy for the purpose of abolishing the Assembly
itself, he might have called on every minister, who had thus
sworn, to recognise his right to do so. The minister might
object and appeal to the Act of this Glasgow Assembly,

214 Establishment of Episcopacy.
but James had a way of his own of silencing appeals to
Acts both of Assembly and Parliament, and adducing his
royal will as a sufficient reason for doing so. The name of
presbytery, as specially obnoxious to the royal ear, was sup
pressed. The synod became the diocese, and of these
dioceses the bishops were recognised as moderators, with
full jurisdiction over the clergy within their bounds. They
were henceforth to exercise the power of excommunication,
to receive and judge presentations to benefices, to ordain or
depose ministers, and to visit and maintain discipline through
out the diocese. In a word, the powers of both presbyteries
and synods were concentrated in their persons, and thus at a
stroke of the pen the government of the Kirk was changed
from a democracy into an aristocracy, under the supreme
direction of the king. The General Assembly might remain,
but it remained merely on sufferance. It had lost both its
power and its independence, and the formal condemnation
of the Aberdeen Assembly was a significant hint of the
fate reserved for any attempt to assert its authority and a
guarantee of its future impotence.
It only remained for Parliament to complete this revolu
tion, and Parliament showed itself equally ready to legislate
to royal order. It had already, in fact, signalised its zeal in
favour of the bishops. In 1606, it not only acknowledged
the royal prerogative in all causes, both spiritual and temporal,
but restored to the bishops the temporalities of their sees,
formerly annexed to the crown. There was, indeed, a dis
sentient minority, but the Government managed to muffle its
opposition by the exercise " of continual care and exceeding
pains," as they informed his majesty. Three years later, it
enacted their restoration to their former authority and privi
leges. Finally, in 16 12, it added the epilogue to this chapter
of intrigue and coercion by ratifying the articles of the
Glasgow Assembly, with modifications tending to increase
the Episcopal power, and annulling the Act of 1 592 and all
others contrary to these.
One might, in a certain sense, admit the " absolute "
supremacy in Church and State which James claimed and
Parliament by this legislation recognised. If by "absolute"
be understood that he was an independent ruler and owned

The Absolute Supremacy of Crown. 215
no allegiance to Rome, his claim was forcible enough. If he
only meant to assert that there must be a sovereign power in
the State to which all must submit, there was no less force
in the assertion. But such an assertion requires to be made
and understood in its proper sense. The sovereign power is
not equivalent to the supreme volition of a certain individual
who annexes to his person the title of sovereign. In every
country in which the Estates associate themselves with the
ruler in government and legislation, it means the volition of a
supreme will constitutionally exercised, i.e., with the consent
and advice of the nation through its representatives. James
might admit this limitation on paper, but we know from his
writings and speeches that he sought to ignore it in both theory
and practice and make himself independent, if not of parlia
mentary co-operation, at any rate of parliamentary control, —
to absorb the sovereign power in his own person. Hence the
danger of subscribing such general declarations, which might
become the pretexts for overriding both law and individual
right. Still more dangerous was the claim to sovereignty
in things ecclesiastical as well as temporal. To admit this
sovereignty might be no more than' to deny the pope's
ecclesiastical supremacy. But for James it had not only a
negative, but a positive meaning. It signified the acknow
ledgment of his right to domineer over the Kirk ; the recog
nition \of his right to override the law, to suppress all dissent
from his ecclesiastical policy. It gave him the lordship of
conscience and tended to inaugurate a despotism in matters
in which despotism is most offensive and harassing. Granted
that the Kirk .claimed this supremacy and in virtue thereof
coerced the conscience not only of its members, but of those
who were outside its pale. Its claim to do so might and did
lead to persecution. But the Kirk professed at least to act in
accordance with a certain constitution and through an elected
Assembly, supposed to represent the nation in things religious.
Its action was at least the action of the majority constitution
ally expressed, not that of an arbitrary will which was a law
unto itself. The principle in the one, case might in effect be
as persecuting as the other, for the mistaken principle of the
age was that men in matters of conscience were amenable to
external authority. But the Kirk in the exercise of its

216 Its Danger to Rights of Subject.
ecclesiastical supremacy was at least restrained by its own
constitution, by Acts to which men might appeal. James, on
the other hand, might, in virtue of his ecclesiastical preroga
tive, bend the law to suit himself and enforce obedience to his
ecclesiastical fancies, whether the Kirk relished them or not.
The bishops, the judicatories of the Church, were there to do
whatever he commanded. Such was, at least, the belief of
their opponents, and their future as well as their present
attitude towards their royal patron went far to confirm their
belief. The bishop in their eyes was the mere creature of the
monarch, and bishops like Gladstanes were not ashamed to
confess the fact. " This bishoprie," we read in one of these
Presbyterian philippics, " will bring the countrie, the lawes, the
priviledges thereof in slaverie, servitude, and riotous dissolu-
tioun. For if anie succeeding prince please to play the tyrant
and governe all not by lawes, but by his will and pleasure,
signified by missives, articles, and directiouns, these bishops
will never admonish him, as faithful pastors and messengers
of God, but as they are made up by man, they must and will
flatter, pleasure, and obey man. And as they stand byaffec-
tionis of the prince, so will they by no meanes jeopard their
standing, but be the readiest of all to put the king's will and
pleasure in executioun."
There is considerable force in this reasoning, and the
history of Scotland in the seventeenth century was to bear it
out only too fully. The future of constitutional liberty lay in
truth not with the servile bishop, but with the stout presbyter
who did not hesitate to invoke the law and resist the monarch
in defence of political as well as religious rights. For such,
James' policy of interference and dictation, in spite of Acts of
Parliament and Assembly, let alone conscientious scruples,
constituted a thraldom to be resisted in the name of God and
man. And such resistance was imperative if Scotland was
not to succumb to the personal absolutism which the Stuarts
would fain have enforced north as well as south of the Tweed.
James might hesitate to go all the length to which his son was
prepared to go, but the theory tended to the same goal in both
cases, and the substitution of the bishop for the presbyter was
indispensable to its partial, as to its entire realisation. Mean
while James might seem to have manoeuvred and crushed the

Reform of Presbyterian Worship. 217
spirit of resistance into abeyance. The Episcopal triumph
might be a triumph for personal government, but political
theory was mingled with the contendings of both parties, and
the arguments of the champions of Presbyterian democracy
had sunk deep into the heart of the people. The day was
not so far off when these arguments would burst into utterance
once more as the battle cries of a revolution.
Having reformed the government of the Kirk, James' next
care was to reform its worship. The simple Presbyterian
service was as obnoxious as the presbyter himself, and the
Kirk was ere long to discover that, along with the bishops, it
must take as much of the English ritual as James deemed
necessary for its edification. Even the bishops were very dubious
as to the expediency of further innovation, but their master
was imperative, and an Assembly which met at Aberdeen in
i6i6went the length of ordaining, though not without dissent
on the part of a considerable section of the ministers, a new
Confession of Faith and a more elaborate liturgy than Knox's
" Book of Common Order." These alterations fell far short of
James' reform programme, which stipulated kneeling at
communion, the observance of the great Church festivals,
Episcopal confirmation, private baptism, and private com
munion. Even Spottiswood, whom he had transferred from
Glasgow to St Andrews on the death of Gladstanes in 161 5,
demurred and begged him to walk warily. James was, how
ever, determined to exact conformity, though he agreed to
waive compliance pending his visit to Scotland in the follow
ing year. He even went the length of trying to reassure those
who foreboded what was coming by a' proclamation, disavow
ing any intention to innovate further in religion. He had all
the same made up his mind to force his Five Articles on the
Kirk in virtue of his ecclesiastical prerogative, if the Assembly
should rebel against its ecclesiastical leaders. He had the
Anglican service celebrated in his presence in the Chapel
Royal at Holyrood, and, as a preliminary to the ritualistic
alterations on which his heart was bent, he proposed to the
Scottish Parliament that " whatsoever conclusion was taken
by his majesty, with advice of the archbishops and bishops, in
matters of external policy, the same should have the power
and strength of an ecclesiastical law."

218 Protest and Punishment of Protesters.
The bishops, having the fear of the ministers before their
eyes, demurred. The proposed Act was indeed a knock
down blow to the General Assembly. James stormed, and
in his bluntest fashion reminded the bishops that they were
there to execute his orders. " To have matters ruled as they
have been in your General Assemblie," he burst out, " I will
never agree, for the bishops must rule the ministers and the
king rule both, in matters indifferent and not repugnant to
the Word of God." What he accounted indifferent was, how
ever, of the very essence of conscientious conviction to a
large section of clergy and people, as he was explicitly
informed in a protestation in defence of the liberties of the
Kirk against the objectionable Act. The protesters, to
the number of fifty-six, appealed to the legislative rights of
the Assembly, as confirmed by various Acts of Parliament,
and to his majesty's assurance by proclamation that he would
attempt nothing against the same, entreated him to desist
from his purpose, and concluded with the expression of their
determination rather to incur the royal anger than submit.
James was sufficiently impressed by the spirited document,
which was presented to him at Holyrood, on the 28th June
1617, by Mr Peter Hewat, one of the ministers of Edinburgh
and titular Abbot of Crossraguel, to order the obnoxious
Act to be excluded from those presented for ratification on
the last day of the Parliament. But the reason which he
adduced for his compliance did not tend to reassure these
anxious presbyters. He had, he said, ample powers in this
matter in virtue of his prerogative, and the Act was, therefore,
unnecessary. The leaders of the protesters promptly
experienced in their persons what the exercise of these
powers meant. Three of them, Hewat, Calderwood, the
historian, and minister of Crailing, and Simson, minister of
Dalkeith, were summoned before the High Commission, in
the presence of James, at St Andrews, and imprisoned
for their rebellious presumption. Calderwood, in particular,
who stoutly denied the right of the king and the bishops
thus to assume the functions of the General Assembly, and
resisted James' personal demand for submission, was not
merely sent to prison by his incensed antagonist. He was
banished to Holland, where he spent several years in com-

James Rates the Ministers. 219
posing that vast History, which, however unwieldy and
ill -arranged, depicts, in occasional realistic touches, the
ecclesiastical drama enacted on the stage of Scotland from
the advent of Melville to the death of James.
Even arnong that section of the ministers who had
hitherto conformed for the sake of peace, if not on principle,
James found a distinct tendency to revolt from this dicta
tion on the plea of prerogative. At a meeting of these held
during this St Andrews visit, to which he proposed the Five
Articles, he indulged in very , peremptory language. " The
errand for which I have now called you," said he, " is to hear
what your scruples are on these points, and the reasons, if
any, you have why the same ought not to be admitted. I
mean not to do anything against reason ; and, on the other
part, my demands being just and religious, you must not
think that I will be refused or resisted. It is a power
innated, and a special prerogative which we that are Christian
kings have, to order and dispose of external things in the
policy of the Church, as we by advice of our bishops shall
find most fitting ; and for your approving or disapproving
deceive not yourselves. I will never regard it unless you
bring me a reason which I cannot answer." Despite this
bluster, the assembled clergy refused to commit themselves,
and asked for a General Assembly. James stormed anew.
His experience of General Assemblies had not been very
reassuring, and if he imposed the Articles, as he was deter
mined to do, in the teeth of a refusal, would he not be
denounced in hundreds of pulpits as a tyrant and persecutor?
If they would not guarantee compliance, he would on no
account grant their request. This guarantee Spottiswood
declined to give, but one of the ministers undertaking to
answer for his brethren, James desisted and betook himself
homewards in the belief that he had gained his point.
The Assembly which convened at St Andrews three
months later (November 1617) nevertheless would not pander
so far to Popery as to kneel at cctamunion or observe the
holy days. Even those who were too enlightened to see
Popery in these articles felt that so sudden a change in
religious custom was really too much to expect of the nation.
To kneel at communion was for the great majority of their

220 Objections and Remonstrances.
flocks equivalent to the recognition of the real presence, and
therefore an admission of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Had not Christ and the apostles celebrated the Lord's Supper
sitting, and why should they be called on to do so kneeling ?
Why should his majesty force them to commit sacrilege, and
thus rend the Church anew with strife? Why, moreover,
should Scotsmen be forced to adopt English practices in pre
ference to their own ? Such were the arguments used at St
Andrews, and urged on the king himself in private epistles
like that of Mr Patrick Galloway, one of the moderate
ministers of Edinburgh. Such, too, the objections urged by
men like Patrick Forbes of Carse, whom James nominated
to the see of Aberdeen, and who reminded Archbishop
Spottiswood that these demands were directly contrary to
the royal promise to refrain from further innovations. Let
his majesty, therefore, be guided in these matters by a free
General Assembly, and henceforth refrain from either bribes
or threats in the attempt to influence its decisions. Forbes,
in fact, would be no party to such coercive courses, and at
first refused the offer of a bishopric rather than become the
tool of an arbitrary will. To such representations James was
too angry to listen, and not only indulged in threats, but
ordered the archbishop to let the ministers feel his ire in their
pockets by denying the boon 'of augmentation of stipend to
all who had opposed his will. " Since your Scottish Church
hath so far contemned my clemency," wrote he to Spottis
wood, " they shall now feel what it is to draw the anger of
a king upon them." In further proof of his determination
he issued a proclamation in January 1618 commanding the
observance of Christmas, Easter, and other holy days on pain
of punishment for rebellion. Unfortunately the bishops were
not the men to hold their ground against such bluster, and
even Forbes meekly allowed himself to be overawed. They
held out the prospect of better results from another Assembly
at Perth. At Perth, accordingly, on August 161 8, James repeated
by letter in an aggravated form the bluster that had failed at
St Andrews. He claimed the right to impose these Articles
against the will of both clergy and people. The bishops were
there to see his will done. If they could obtain the consent of

Peremptoriness of James. 221
the ministers, good and well. If not, they were to decree the
Articles in virtue of the royal authority, pure and simple,
regardless of "the unruly and ignorant multitude." "We
have placed you that are bishops and overseers of the rest
in the cheefest roomes. You plead much, we perceive, to
have matters done by consent of the ministers, and tell us
often that what concernes the Church in general should
be concluded by the advice of the whole. Neither do we
altogether dislike your purpose ; for the greater consent
there is amongst yourselves, the greater is our contentment.
But we will not have you to thinke that matters proposed by
us of that nature, whereof these Articles are, may not, without
such a general consent, be enjoyned by our authoritie.
This were a misknowing of your places, and withal a dis
claiming of that innate power which we have by our calling
from God, by the which we have place to dispose of things
externall in the Church as we shall think them to be con
venient and profitable for advancing true religion amongst
our subjects. Therefore let it be your care by all manner
of wise and discreete persuasions to induce them to
an obedient yielding unto these things as in duty both
to God and us they are bound. And do not think
that we will be satisfied with refuses or delayes or
mitigations, and we know not what other shifts have been
proponed : for we will content ourselves with nothing but
with a simple and direct acceptance of these Articles in the
forme by us sent unto you." If, continued he, they should
adduce the discontent of the people in justification of their
resistance, he had summoned a number of the nobility and
others to be present in order to show that the opposition
proceeded not from the loyal people, but from a rebellious
faction of ministers.
The bishops, at least, hardly deserved this scolding. They
had been busy in the interval since the St Andrews meeting
threatening or cajoling a sufficient number of their clergy
into compliance, and the power of augmenting or diminishing
stipend had proved a potent means of conversion. The
Government had been equally active in beating up recruits
among the laity, and Spottiswood had good' reason to assure
his master that the Perth Assembly would do his bidding.

222 The Assembly of Perth.
He had, in fact, a majority of votes in his pocket before a
single Article was discussed. Nevertheless, he allowed the
members to go through the farce of a formal deliberation,
taking care to constitute himself moderator in spite of the
demand for a free election, and to silence all inquiry into the
commissions of those present. Bishop Forbes, in his opening
sermon, roundly asserted that scruples of conscience in these
matters should give way to the royal authority. Spottiswood,
who followed him in the pulpit, reminded his listeners that
James was a theologian as well as a king — " the most potent
adversary that Rome ever found " — and that no decent con
science could safely disobey his majesty in this matter. They
had, moreover, he added in a subsequent speech, no alterna
tive but to obey or to sacrifice the Kirk, and with it their
stipends, to the royal wrath. This was certainly a sorry
exhibition of opportunism on the part of the president of
what was supposed to be a free deliberative body, and not the
least sorry feature is the fact that in his History he seems to
be supremely unconscious of the odiousness of his rdle.
Other speakers were equally weak-kneed and time-serving,
and the archbishop did not hesitate to call on Dr Young, the
incumbent of an English deanery, to strengthen the appeal
for submission. To allow an English dean to intervene in
the debate for the purpose of swaying Scottish votes in a
matter in which he had no right of interference was indeed
the height of effrontery. Happily for the honour of their
countrymen, there was at least a minority to protest against
the degrading servitude which the archbishop and his abettors
inculcated. These men appealed to their ordination oath, and
the obligation to maintain the established worship. They
demanded free and full discussion of the Articles before being
asked to vote them en bloc. They appealed and demanded
in vain. Spottiswood succeeded in referring all discussion to
a committee, of which the bishops and the assured ministers
formed the large majority. This conference concluded that
the question for the Assembly to decide was not, as the non
conformists contended, Why should these changes be intro
duced ? but, Why should they not be received ? This was to
throw the burden of proof on the opposition and to embarrass
them besides with the responsibility of saying whether the

Articles carried by Unfair Tactics. 223
king should be obeyed or not. The majority of the com
mittee voted of course in the affirmative, and it was not
doubtful which alternative the majority of the Assembly
would choose, especially as the moderator took good care to
check those members who, like John Carmichael and Alex
ander Henderson, attempted to expatiate on the merits of the
subject. If Calderwood may be- trusted, he did not refrain
from insulting such independent members into silence by
taunts and insinuations. " Think not," cried he, " but when
the Act is made I will get obedience of you. There is none
of you that voteth in the contrairie mindeth to suffer. Some
men pretend conscience, and feare more to offend the people
than the king. But all that will not doe the turne." He
gave full rein, on the other hand, to the advocates of submis
sion. " Many ministers," says Calderwood, " had not so much
as accesse to heare, or propose one argument. They had no
seats provided for them, as the other partie had ; gentlemen
thronged in before them. The defenders of the Articles were
permitted to discourse as long as they pleased, to gibe, mock,
and cavill. . . . The last arguments and answers were taken
from the authoritie of the king's sword ; he will ranverse (over
turn) all except we yield." In despair, the opposition handed
in fifteen objections in writing which the moderator refused
to consider. Finally, he had the king's letter read once more,
and proceeded to take the vote, calling out the while, as each
member answered to his name, " Have the king in your
mind," " Remember the king," " Look to the king." Needless
to say, the king carried the day, the affirmatives numbering
eighty-six, the negatives forty-one. The majority consisted
almost entirely of the laymen whose presence the Govern
ment had pressed for the occasion, and it is certain that the
opposition represented the real feeling of the country. Even
Spottiswood was very dubious of the approval of the large
section of the nobility which had sent excuses for staying
away. They might be eager enough to accept the royal
favour, but in the archbishop's opinion they could not always
be relied on at a pinch. These men evidently had no par
ticular liking for an order which was threatening to outshine
them in dignity and power. Whether their lukewarmness
arose from jealousy or principle, there can be no doubt that

224 Opposition in Parliament.
the clerical opposition was actuated by the sense of the duty
of resistance. The marvel is, in view of the efforts beforehand to manu
facture a majority and the unfair tactics of the moderator,
that the vote of the ministers was nearly equally divided. They
might be narrow, but in judging their conduct we ought to
bear in mind that the main question is not one of breadth or
narrowness, but of the right to resist dictation that took no
account either of legal right or conscientious scruples, and made
use of the most unworthy expedients to gain its ends. Things
indifferent these Five Articles might be, as the bishops urged,
but in lending themselves to such high-handed proceedings
Spottiswood and his fellow-prelates were doing their best to
enslave the Kirk to a sheer autocracy, and to endanger civil
liberty as well.
The Articles were duly proclaimed by royal authority, and
dissent forbidden under threat of severe punishment (October
1618). Three years later, they received the sanction of a
majority of the Scottish Parliament (August 1621), which
James' financial necessities had compelled him to summon.
There was, however, a formidable minority headed by Rothes,
Eglinton, Menteith, Burghley, Balmerino, and others, and
this minority gave the Marquess of Hamilton, the Commis
sioner, a very anxious time of it. It demanded permission to
meet apart and discuss the question before voting. Hamilton
was forced to give way, and the opposition gave vent in no
measured terms to its detestation of the obnoxious Articles.
They paid no attention to either the threats or the coaxings
of the Commissioner. In vain he promised that there should'
be no further alteration in the worship of the Kirk. " The
(opposing) noblemen and barons," wrote Secretary Melrose
(formerly Sir Thomas Hamilton) to James, " are reported to
have dealt so passionately against the confirmation of the
Church Articles and the taxation of anvelrents that your
majesty's Commissioner was forced to discharge the abused
liberty of their assembling, and since that time has been
forced to take so continuall travell to dissolve their combina
tion, and by assistance of all his friends dulie affected to your
majesty's service, to convert them to their dutie, as has per
mitted small time of rest or sleep to him. He inclined to

Small Majority in favour of Articles. 225
have caused punish some of the most avowedlie malicious,
but the error being almost popular, he was counselled to for-
beare offensive rigour, and to studie to calme and reclame
them by more mild meanes, and is in hope so to prevaile with
a number of them that they sail either stay, or concur in your
majestie's service, or absente themselves, and so do no harme."
The marquess' hope was not realised. The opposition would
neither concur, nor absent themselves, and to the number of
fifteen noblemen, ten representatives of counties, and as many
as twenty-four burgh members voted against the Articles, as
against thirty-five nobles, eleven county, and twenty burgh
members who, with the eleven bishops, made up the majority.
Exclusive of the bishops, there was thus only a bare majority
of seventeen laymen in their favour, in spite of the persistent
pressure of the Commissioner and his fellow-ministers,
seconded by the Dean of Winchester. The strength of this
minority clearly proves that the large lay majority, which had
supported Spottiswood at Perth, was not a true index of the
attitude of at least a large section of the lower nobility and
the middle class towards an obnoxious ecclesiastical policy.
Though the majority was so small, James could now
adduce the sanction of the law as a stimulant to the bishops
to persevere in carrying out his will. "The greatest mater
the Puritanes had," wrote he, "ever to object against the
Church government was that your proceedings were warranted
by no law, which now by this last Parliament is cutted short ;
so that hereafter that rebellious, disobedient, and seditious
crew must either obey or resist God, their naturall king, and
the law of their countrie. It resteth, therefore, with you to be
encouraged and comforted by this happie occasion, and to
loose no more time in preparing a settled obedience to God
and us by the good endeavour of our commissioner and others,
true-hearted subjects and servants. The sword is now put into
your hands ; goe on, therefore, to use it, and let it roust no
longer till ye have perfited the service trusted to you, or
otherwise we must use it both against you and them. ... As
Papistrie is a disease of the minde, so is Puritanisme in the
braine. So the only remedie and antidote against it will be a
grave, settled, uniforme and well-ordered Churche obedient to
God and their king." To aid them in the laudable under-
VOL. III. P

226 Dissent and Persecution.
taking James fulminated a second proclamation (June
1620) denouncing severe penalties against all who should
persist in their rebellious defiance. To refrain from attending
conformist services on holidays was henceforth to forfeit
13s. 6d. to his majesty. To refuse to kneel cost an earl 100
pounds, a lord 100 merks, a baron and laird 50 pounds, and
everybody else 20 pounds. He returned to the charge in a
third proclamation (June 1624) in which he inveighed against
" the damned sect of Anabaptists and such pests, enemies to
religion, authoritie, and peace," and summarily prohibited
their conventicles under pain of punishment in their persons
and goods.
Despite Acts of Parliament and proclamations, the bishops
had a sufficiently hard task in imposing conformity. Many
of the inhabitants of the capital, for instance, showed their
dislike of " geniculation " and their contempt for the conform
ing clergy by resorting to the churches of nonconforming
ministers in the environs to worship in accordance with use
and wont, or holding private conventicles for mutual exhorta
tion. " The ministers," said one of these dissenters with some
humour as well as bitterness, " were wont to say to us lang
syne, 'thus saith the Lord,' but now they change and say,
' thus saith the king and the Kirk.' " The High Commission
was kept busy summoning and sentencing recusants, both lay
and cleric, hunting after obnoxious pamphlets in denunciation
of the Perth Assembly, and ferreting out conventicles. The
High Commission summoned and sentenced in vain. The
accused simply declined to own its jurisdiction, and appealed
to the liberties of the KirJc. They would rather die than bow
the knee to Baal, and would not be moved by Spottiswood's
insulting bluster to sell their consciences to please the king.
Equally futile were the exhortations and threats of the
conforming ministers in pulpit and session. The disputants
hurled the harshest epithets at each other's heads. To the
nonconformists the bishops and conforming ministers were
"bellygods," "hirelings," "Balaams," "Judases." The con
formists in return called their opponents " Anabaptists,"
" Brownists," &c, and Archbishop Spottiswood even
descended, if Calderwood may be trusted, to downright
cursing and swearing in his capacity as president of the High

Resistance to Coercion. 227
Commission. James himself exercised his powers of vitupera
tion on the same side in his proclamations. The churches
were turned into pandemoniums of contention and confusion.
" There was great confusion and disorder in manie kirks,"
relates Calderwood, who is confirmed by Secretary Melrose,
"by reason of the late innovations." Spottiswood in truth
despaired of forcing or coaxing conformity. In desperation
he suggested the expedient of fining the recusants in sums
equal to, or exceeding, the value of their property as likely to
touch his countrymen in a very sensitive part. " To be
punished by the purse," wrote he in May 1623, in reference
more particularly to the anarchy prevailing in the Edinburgh
churches, "is a thing that ever hath been most grievous to
Scottishmen and keepeth them most in awe." The Privy
Council hesitated, in spite of repeated royal injunctions, to
apply an expedient which virtually amounted to confiscation,
but it sent recalcitrant preachers, who persisted in holding
conventicles, to Blackness and other prisons. The people,
nevertheless, slipped into these conventicles and preferred
separation from the Kirk to kneeling at the royal command.
The opposition of the Edinburgh dissenters was paralleled
by that of those of Ayr and other towns, and James was fain
to revoke a proclamation commanding all the inhabitants of
the capital to receive the communion kneeling on Christmas
Day 1624 and grant a dispensation till the following Easter.
Before Easter came he had disappeared from the scene of
conflict. In Scotland even more than in England he left a
people soured and estranged by his policy of bluster, and
rasped almost into revolt by persecution. Despite his huge
self-complacence, he must have felt on that deathbed at
Theobalds that the attempt to play a master r61e in Scotland
had failed miserably. His bad faith and his arbitrary tactics
had rent the Kirk and nurtured an antagonism to his govern
ment which was but thinly veiled by an unwilling compliance
even on the part of many of those who conformed, and found
fearless expression before High Commission and Privy Council
on the part of the stauncher recusants.
SOURCES. — Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, iii. and
iv. ; The Booke of the Universal Kirk of Scotland, ed. of

228 Sources of Chapter X.
Bannatyne Club and of Peterkin (1839); Original Letters
Relating to the Ecclesiastical Affairs of Scotland from 1603
to 1625, edited for the Bannatyne Club by B. Bottfield (185 1) ;
State-' Papers and Miscellaneous Correspondence of Thomas,
Earl of Melros (Scottish Secretary of State), Abbotsford Club
(1837) ; Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, edited by
Prof. Masson ; State Papers relating to Scotland, edited by
W. K. Boyd (1905); The Historie of King James the Sext
(1 566-1596) (Bannatyne Club); Letters of John Colville
(1582-1603) (Bannatyne Club) ; Autobiography and Diary of
Mr James Melville, edited by R. Pitcairn for the Wodrow
Society ; Memoirs of Sir James Melville (1549-93) (Bannatyne
Club) ; Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, vols.
iii. to vii., edited for the Wodrow Society by Rev. T. Thomson
(1845) — an invaluable repository of original documents, as
well as a contemporary history of the times from the Presby
terian point of view ; Spottiswoode, History of the Church of
Scotland, ii. and iii., edited by Bishop Russell for the Spottis
woode Society (185 1). Written from the Episcopal point
of view. In style and arrangement it is superior to the work
of Calderwood, but vastly inferior in point of information, and
equally one-sided. Row, History of the Kirk of Scotland
(Wodrow Society) ; Lyndesay (Bishop of Brechin), A True
Narrative of the Proceedings of the Assemblie at Perth
(1621); Historical Works of Sir James Balfour, ii. (1824);
Sprott, English Liturgies of the Reign of James VI. (1871);
M'Crie, Life of Andrew Melville (ed. 1899) ; Gardiner, History
of England, iii. (1885). For the general history of the period
the reader may refer to the histories of Tytler, Burton, Ranke,
Brown, Lang, Mathieson.

CHAPTER XI.
The Gathering of the Storm in Scotland
(1625-1635).
Where James failed, his son was not the man to succeed.
Charles signified by proclamation (August 1625) his adherence
to the policy of conformity to the obnoxious Perth Articles,
and threatened severe punishment against presbyterian as
well as popish recusants. Both were classed in the same
category of rebels. The royal and episcopal zeal was, accord
ing to Row, harder on the adherents of Presbytery than on
those of popish tradition. This rigour only intensified the spirit
of resistance, and the ecclesiastical anarchy was aggravated
by the clamour raised by the nobility against the maladroit
Act of Revocation, of which more anon. In this predicament
Charles was forced to relax so far as to direct the bishops to
wink in the meantime at the nonconformity of such ministers
as had been admitted to parishes before the Perth Assembly,
provided they did not inveigh against the obnoxious Articles
and allowed such of their parishioners as preferred to kneel
to do so. Deprived ministers were to share in this toleration
on the same conditions ; otherwise the Articles were to hold
good and be rigidly enforced. This concession might be a
large stretch of the royal conscience, but it did not satisfy
the consciences of men to whom the Five Articles were popish
abominations. Nor did it take into account the conscientious
scruples of nonconforming congregations as well as ministers,
and it failed completely to allay the strife.
Once more the demand for a free General Assembly was
raised by a number of ministers and even bishops who met
in Edinburgh in the summer of 1627, with the Bishop of
Ross as Moderator, and sent two deputies to press the king
to yield. Their appeal was strengthened by a petition from
the Edinburgh ministers, whose churches were almost deserted

230 Charles and the Policy of Conformity.
on the occasion of the celebration of the communion, and
who were fain to forego entirely the celebration during the
year 1628, for permission to resort to the old practice.
Charles responded with threats instead of concessions. He
wrote a peremptory letter to Spottiswood to inflict condign
punishment on the petitioners and persevere in the policy
of coercion (21st April 1628). " If any shall withdraw them
selves," wrote he snappishly to the ministers six months later,
" we shall mak them find what it is to disobey our lawes by
intertaining divisione to the contempt of God and us."
The result was not encouraging for the king or the arch
bishop, and it certainly was scandalous enough to religion.
The pulpits rang with denunciations pro and contra, and the
pandemonium in the pews raged afresh. The suspicion of
further innovations roused the antagonism of even the
champions of prelacy and the Five Articles. Charles and
Laud would, it was feared, not stop where James had ended.
The question of a liturgy, hitherto relegated into abeyance by
the controversy over the Articles, had again become acute.
Laud, it appeared, had banned the hybrid liturgy which had
been drawn up in the latter years of James' reign, but which
the Scottish bishops had not yet ventured to enforce. He
would have nothing short of the English Prayer Book.
Charles agreed with him, and the report of their agreement
carried dismay into the heart of even conformists like Struthers,
one of the Edinburgh ministers. Moderate men like Struthers
now rebelled. "The bishops," wrote he to the Earl of Airth
in January 1630, "are already the victims of public odium,
and borne downe with contempt . . . when they deprive any
brother for nonconformity they scarcely can find an expectant
(candidate) to fill the place that is empty, and that because
they become so odious to the flocke that they can do no good
in their ministrie. But if any further novation be brought in,
the bishops will find ten for one to be deprived, and that of
those who have already given obedience to the Five Articles,
who will rather choose to forsake their places than to enter
in a new fire of combustion. . . . Your lordship knows," he
added, "that I am not one of those who stand out against
order, but do suffer for mine obedience, and, therefore, I the
more boldly suggest these reasons unto your lordship. I

Intensified Alarm and Contention. 231
dwell in the most eminent parish of this land, and so have
occasion to see what is the fruit of a schism. . . . Our fire is
so grate already that it hath more need of watter to quenche
it than oil to augment it."
From this letter it is evident that the suspicion of Charles'
determination to anglify the Kirk was widespread, and that if
he persisted in carrying it out there would be resolute resist
ance on the part of conformists as well as nonconformists.
Even the revolt against the Articles was not confined to
extremists. The more sane-minded of the laity joined in
the protest and advocated toleration on the ground of utility,
if not of conscientious conviction. Ominously enough this
plea found expression in an influential section of the members
of a Convention of the Estates, which met in Edinburgh in
July 1630. This section complained that, owing to the
stringency of the oath exacted by the bishops, good candi
dates for the ministry were no longer forthcoming, requested
that the deprived ministers should be restored to their charges,
and urged that, as the Five Articles had been declared by
Parliament to be things indifferent, none should be molested
for their conscientious scruples. The royal commissioner
evaded these demands by dissolving the Convention and
referring their consideration to a future session.
The Scottish landowners, who composed the large majority
of the Parliament, had every reason to support the king
against the people. They had profited handsomely from the
generosity with which James had lavished the ecclesiastical
lands annexed to the crown in 1587. They had shown their
gratitude by the subserviency with which they had voted for
Presbyterianism in 1592, and Episcopacy in 161 2, in accord
ance with the behest of their royal patron. So long as the
exercise of the royal prerogative did not touch their posses
sions or their privileges, they had been willing during the
greater part of James' reign to revoke and enact at his
majesty's pleasure. There was probably a growing dislike
of the tyranny of the established discipline to make their
compliance more hearty, but in general it would be difficult to
see in votes, which were so amenable to the intrigues of the
Commissioner and the Government, the expression of principle.
The chief business of the Commissioner to Parliament was,

232 Restiveness of the Nobility.
in fact, to secure votes for the more important measures of
the occasion, and the result during the greater part of James'
reign invariably proved the success of his underhand assiduity.
Nevertheless James and his Commissioner were sometimes
fated to discover that there were limits to this submission.
There had been some opposition even in the Parliament of
1606 to the Act re-establishing the estate of bishops, which,
as we learn from the Melros Correspondence, it required
skilful manipulation to overcome, and for the honour of the
Scottish Parliament there was a formidable minority in 1621
to resist to the last the pressure of the Government to secure
its support of the Five Articles. Even then there was a ques
tion of " rents " mixed up with the ecclesiastical question, but
there can be no doubt that this minority represented an
honest reaction, on grounds of utility at least, against a policy
which was rending the country with religious anarchy. James'
tactics were seen to be not only arbitrary, but mischievous,
and thus the Parliament of 162 1 witnessed the formation of a
party which became the nucleus of a growing opposition to
this mischievous regime. The opening measures of Charles'
reign only served to strengthen it. Though a Scotsman
born, he had left Scotland in his third year, and was in sym
pathy and education wholly an Englishman. He, therefore,
lacked that native flavour in his address and ways that had
remained as a link between James and his Scottish subjects.
James might be imperative, but he at least retained his
Scottish accent and Scottish idioms, and his quaint garrulity
struck a sympathetic note in a Scottish ear. Charles had
none of this, and if he should adopt the dictatorial tone
which had made his father unpopular, it would be the tone of
an Englishman, and the dictation of an Englishman would
grate at once on the national nerves. He not only adopted
this dictatorial tone ; he aggravated it by a series of innova
tions in the State as well as the Church, which estranged the
aristocracy without conciliating the people. He not only
patronised Episcopacy; he augmented the influence of the
bishops by employing them in secular offices. He made
Spottiswood President of the Exchequer, the Bishop of Ross
an extraordinary Lord of Session. He nominated five of
them members of the Privy Council, in which the archbishop

The Act of Revocation. 233
obtained the first place. He not only removed all Lords of
Session from seats in the Council, and all Privy Councillors
with the exception of four extraordinary Lords from the
Court of Session ; he proposed to revive the Commission of
Grievances, instituted by James in 1623, and to amplify its
powers so as to make it the Scottish counterpart of the
English Court of Star Chamber. So loud was the outcry
against this importation of English tyranny that he was
forced to waive his intention. " The wisest and best-sighted,"
notes Sir James Balfour, the annalist of the period, " not onlie
feared, but did see that the new Commissional Courte was
nothing els but the Star Chamber Courte of England under
ane other name, come doun here to play the tyrant, with a
specious vissor on its face. Bot after much dqbait betwix
the nobilitee then at courte and his majestie thereanerit, it
being sorely cryed out a'gainst by all honest men, it evanished
in itselffe, without so much as once meitting."
Far more fateful in the eyes of our annalist was the Act
of Revocation, by which, by a stroke of the pen, he annexed
all crown lands, including the lands and " teinds," or tithes, of
the Church, alienated during the previous seventy-five years.
There might be a good deal to be said for the claim from
Charles' point of view. The Church lands and tithes, which
. had passed into the hands of their lay proprietors, were
public property. They had been diverted from public ends
to the aggrandisement of a host of individuals, principally of <
the higher aristocracy, and why should not the descendants
of these men be called on to surrender what belonged, not to
them, but to the public ? Further, if the abuses connected
with the tenure of this ecclesiastical property and ' the levy
of teinds had been scandalous enough under the old
ecclesiastical regime, abuses had not ceased with the change
from the ecclesiastical to the lay proprietor. Complaints of
oppressive tactics were still rife. The holders or " titulars "
of the teinds were enabled thereby to exercise, if they pleased,
a galling tyranny over the lesser landowners, who held of
them, and the tillers of the soil from which these teinds
were drawn. They could jeopardise, the fruits of a whole
year's labour by refusing to allow the crops to be garnered
till they had secured their quota.

234 Determined Opposition of Nobility.
Moreover, they had starved the clergy for well-nigh three-
quarters of a century, as well as tyrannised over their depen
dants, and Charles was ready to improve on the efforts made
by his father in 1617, and guarantee the clergy a fair stipend
from the proceeds of the revocation. His object, on his
own profession, was reform, not oppression, and reform
was clamant. On the other hand, the actual holders of both
lands and tithes had cause for complaint that they should be
thus summarily deprived of inherited rights. Besides, their
titles had been confirmed by Act of Parliament. And the
terms in which the Act of Revocation was couched were cer
tainly startling enough. Charles claimed by proclamation
(November 1625) all alienated property, including tithes,
since the accession of his grandmother, Queen Mary. This
sounded like wholesale confiscation, and if he had been bent
on fomenting widespread rebellion, he could not have signed
a document more pat to the purpose. The use of such
sweeping language, without reference to Parliament, must
have seemed to those more immediately concerned an act
of sheer despotism. Grasping lords and lairds might con
temptuously smile at the protests or repinings of simple
presbyters against the exercise of the prerogative at their
expense. They were thunderstruck by a missive which pro
posed, in virtue of prerogative, to override Acts of Parliament
at their own expense, and some of the more irascible of them
swore that if Nithsdale, Charles' agent in this business, per
sisted in carrying it out, " they would fall on him and all his
party, in the old Scottish fashion, and knock them on the
head." They sought to startle him into retreat by spreading
stories of the outrages that awaited him at the hands of an
enraged people if he dared to set foot within the capital.
The Presbyterian ministers, who had been so long cheated
and starved out of a competent maintenance for the benefit of
these grasping lords, had some reason to see the finger of
retribution in their trepidation. Nevertheless, these recalci
trant ministers had not much reason to expect that the
innovation would particularly benefit them. The bishops
would take good care that any augmentation that would
accrue therefrom would be given only to conformists. Charles
was, in truth, preparing a common ground for recalcitrant

A Compromise. 235
presbyter and malcontent noble to stand on in opposition to
himself and his Government in Scotland. That section of the
nobility which, on grounds of sympathy or public spirit, had
sided with the nonconformists against the king in 162 1 would
in the near future be seconded by many of their order on
grounds of resentment and self-interest.
Grievances, both ecclesiastical and temporal, were thus
working towards making the Presbyterian party a national
instead of a sectarian party. Our annalist sees, in fact, in the
revocation the germ of a revolution. "It was," he tells us, " in
effecte the ground stone of all the mischieffe that followed
after, both to this king's government and family, and whoever
were the contrivers of it deserve they and all their posterity
to be reputted by these three kingdomes infamous and accursed
for ever." Sir James Balfour, as an aristocrat, sees chiefly the
evil side of the matter — the exercise of the prerogative at
the expense of the class. Charles, however, evidently did not
intend to go the full length of his proposal. While instruct
ing the Lord Advocate, Sir Thomas Hope, to commence
what is known as a process of reduction against the parties in
question, and storming at a petition forwarded by Rothes,
Linlithgow, and Loudon as couched in " too high a strain for
petitioners and subjects," he ultimately offered to compound
with them in a reasonable spirit. He referred the dispute to
a commission, and as the result of a lengthy investigation
into what is for the modern reader both a technical and a
complicated subject,' a fairly equitable bargain was struck.
The owners of lands and teinds resigned them into the king's
hands (February 1628), but Charles agreed (September 1629)
in return to allow the holders of the lands to retain them on
paying a fixed revenue to the crown and acknowledging his
feudal superiority over them. The teind-holders were to
receive a sum equivalent to nine years' purchase, if the owner
of the land subject to this charge preferred to buy them out.
If he did not prefer this arrangement, he was to pay a fixed
annual rent from which, however, the stipend of the minister
and an annuity to the king were to be deducted. The
arrangement had much to recommend it to the clergy, to
whom it assured an enhanced maintenance, and to the lesser
landowners, whom it freed from a heavy burden. They had

236 Charles' Visit to Edinburgh.
reason to bless Charles for his persistence in the face of the
opposition of the more powerful families. But it rankled
in the hearts of these magnates who did not relish this deter
mined interference with established rights, and had all the
impulse of personal resentment to whet their impatience of
any further assertion of the royal prerogative. If Charles
should take it into his head to attempt any further innova
tions in Kirk or State, in virtue of prerogative, these aggrieved
magnates would not be slow to stand forth as champions
of a better cause than that of self-interest — the cause of the
rights of Parliament and Assembly. They were ere long to
find pretexts enough for their new-fangled public spirit.
Meanwhile they muffled their discontent, and Charles, on
visiting Edinburgh to be crowned in June 1633, received a
right hearty Scottish welcome. Our annalist goes into ecstasy
over the loyalty that found expression in voluminous speeches
on the part of King Fergus, Caledonia, and other emblematic
figures, and made the High Street and the Canongate re
splendent with decorations of various device, all the way
from the West Port, where his majesty entered, to Holyrood,
whither he passed on the 1 5th in right royal procession, which
included the official pageantry of England as well as Scotland.
Equally gorgeous and impressive was his progress on the 1 8th
from the castle to the palace to be crowned with elaborate
ceremonial in the Abbey Kirk ; and from the palace to the
Parliament House to open the session of the Estates of his old
Scottish realm. " The Riding of the Parliament," when
the Estates rode up the High Street in gala costume befitting
their respective rank, was no strange spectacle in Edinburgh,
but on this occasion the presence of royalty lent it all the
fascination of novelty as well as extraordinary pomp. As for
the coronation it was simply in our annalist's eyes unique —
" the most glorious and magnifique coronatione that ever was
seen in this kingdome and the first King of Great Britaine that
ever was crowned in Scotland." As a spectacular display
Charles and his subjects had evidently every reason to be
satisfied with the success of the visit, and, doubtless, the
decorative demonstrations and the resonant acclamations were
the expression of hearty loyalty, sincere good wishes. Yet
Charles managed to do some things that rasped the feelings

Charles' Tactless Zeal. 237
of his Scottish subjects and left the sting of resentment and
suspicion rankling in their minds. His tact was certainly not
conspicuous in including a man like Laud in his train, and in
having the full English service celebrated not only in the
Chapel Royal, but in the Church of St Giles. Laud's
presence excited the suspicion of the royal determination to
anglify the Kirk, and his conduct only tended to increase it.
The Scottish bishops who officiated in the Abbey Kirk and in
St Giles' during the visit appeared as the mere puppets and
satellites of the Bishop of London. Those of them who did
not officiate and hesitated to approve of the Anglican service
were promptly snubbed by Charles' overbearing mentor in
ecclesiastical affairs. Rushworth has a story that, on the
occasion of the coronation ceremony, Laud thrust aside the
Archbishop of Glasgow, who appeared in a plain black gown,
from his position on Charles' left hand with the brusque
words, "Are you a Churchman and wants the coat of your
order?" The story is not confirmed by other more trust
worthy contemporary accounts, but these accounts leave no
doubt as to the bad impression produced by the aping of
Anglican forms in the Chapel Royal of the Scottish capital.
Many present, notes Row, marvelled that " such things should
be used in this reformed Kirk." And even a moderate like
Spalding could not refrain from commenting on " the white
rochets and white sleeves " of the officiating Scottish bishops,
the altar, the candles, the crucifix to which the said bishops
bowed, " which bred great fear of inbringing of poperie." Far
more offensive was the introduction of these Anglican forms
into the service of the Cathedral Kirk of St Giles. Charles
might, in his own autocratic fashion, claim to do as he liked in
his own Chapel Royal. To foist the English service on the
congregation of one of the city churches was really too
audacious. The responsibility lay with Laud, and Charles,
according to report, was not too well pleased with the servility
of the Bishop of Ross who lent himself to this new departure.
Imagine King James on his arrival in London setting up the
Presbyterian' service in Westminster Abbey or St Paul's
without so much as dropping a hint to the English people
beforehand ! Such an offence of national feeling, as well as
religious sentiment, would have been unpardonable. Yet

238 The Scottish Parliament.
this was what Charles' ecclesiastical mentors presumed to do
in the Kirk of St Giles. On Sunday, the 23rd June, when he
entered the said kirk, he found the Scottish service already in
progress — the reader reading and the people singing Psalms
as was customary before sermon. No sooner was he seated in
the royal gallery than the Bishop of Ross went down, removed
the reader, and substituted two English chaplains in their
surplices. These, with the assistance of other chaplains and
bishops present, " acted their English service," as Row puts it,
" without any warrand or pretext either of law or reason," and
to the scandal of the congregation. Henceforth suspicion
became conviction, and we may be certain that during
Charles' progress to and from the Parliament House the
acclamations on that old High Street became much fainter
than before.
Even in the Parliament House itself there were friction and
opposition to mar the harmony of the visit. A Scottish Par
liament might not offer the same scope for conflict as at West
minster. The real business was transacted by a committee
known as the Lords of the Articles. This committee pre
pared all business to be presented to the assembled Estates,
and the part of the Estates was to vote pro or contra without
debate. It was so constituted and manipulated as to be the
mere tool of the Government. At this period it was composed
of eight representatives of each Estate, but the selection of these
representatives was not intrusted, as had been the case previous
to 1609, to the members of their respective Estate. The nobles
first of all selected eight bishops. These eight bishops selected
eight nobles. These sixteen bishops and nobles in turn
selected eight barons, or representatives of shires, and eight
burgh members. These thirty-two persons, with nine
members of the Government nominated by the king, formed
the Lords of the Articles. The thirty-two were thus in reality
the nominees of the bishops, for the bishops chose their eight
noble partners in the selection of the other sixteen. When we
further bear in mind that the Episcopal members were sub
servient to the royal influence, it is apparent that Charles, who
sedulously attended the committee's deliberations, could get
any policy he wished in Church or State presented to Parlia
ment. What that policy was in matters ecclesiastical appeared

Charles' Insidious 'and Partisan Tactics. 239
in two of the more important Bills presented on the 28th June.
Parliament was asked, in the first place, to confirm all the
ecclesiastical Acts of the previous reign, and, in the second
place, to combine the Act of 1606, acknowledging the king's
prerogative, with an Act of 1609 authorising the king to
dictate the apparel of Kirkmen. To empower the king to play
the role of clerical tailor might seem harmless enough. It
might mean no more than the compulsory wearing by the
clergy of " black, grave, and comely apparel " (as the Act of
James put it). But there was more than this in the device,
and suspicion was not slow to see what Charles was aiming at.
It would empower him to order the use of rochet and surplice
with the sanction of Parliament, as he actually did by pro
clamation in the following October, and the surplice would be
followed in due time by further ritual innovations. This, how
ever, was not the worst of it, for the Act made it impossible to
object to the surplice without objecting to the prerogative. It
excited, therefore, strenuous opposition on the part of the
Presbyterian members, who drew up a remonstrance or
supplication to be presented to the king. Charles would not
receive it, and when Parliament met in full session on the
28th, he would neither allow objection nor listen to remon
strance. He ordered the members to vote yea or nay, and so
far forgot his dignity as to act the part of an angry partisan.
He not only seized a pen and noted how each member voted,
he angrily apostrophised individuals of the opposition. Rush-
worth has preserved a report that he even went the length of
taking a written list out of his pocket with the remark,
" Gentlemen, I have all your names here, and I will know
who will do me service and who will not this day." He, no
doubt, gained a number of votes by these minatory tactics,
but he did not succeed in silencing the protests of some of the
opposition leaders. " I disagree from these Articles concluded
against the former order of this Kirk," exclaimed the aged
Lord Melville, "because your majesty's father, after he had
sworn himself, caused me and all the kingdom to swear and
subscribe the Confession of Faith that was then set down,
wherein all these things that are now coming in are rejected
by our Kirk." Lord Loudon protested equally vigorously
against the combination of the two Acts. Charles cut him

240 Intensifies National Antagonism.
short with the command not " to dispute there, but to vote."
The Earl of Rothes was even bolder. When Lord Clerk
Register Hay read out the result, which gave the majority to
the king, he questioned the correctness of the figures. Charles
ordered him to be silent, or else make good his contention at
the peril of his life. As failure would involve him in a charge
of treason, Rothes discreetly held his peace, and it seems that
Charles' scandalous interference with the right of free voting
had given him at least a bare majority. It is usual to
denounce the opposition of these men as actuated by mere
resentment against the Act of Revocation. But Rothes had
distinguished himself by his antagonism to the Five Articles
in the Parliament of 162 1, and the party he represented was
to a large extent the party that had shared in this opposition.
If Rothes and Loudon had also taken a prominent part in the
agitation against the Revocation, their opposition to Anglican
innovations was, at all events, consistent.
Charles had triumphed, but he had at the same time
succeeded in intensifying the antagonism of the nation to his
ecclesiastical policy. He had shown his hand in unmistakable
fashion, and the leaders of the opposition had not hesitated to
show theirs in full Parliament. There had seemed, for a brief
space, a chance that he might be persuaded to take a states
manlike view of the situation. He had taken in good part
the private representations of some of the nobility on behalf
of the Kirk. But Laud and the bishops had quickly dispelled
this momentary vacillation towards moderation, and his con
duct in Parliament was that of a violent partisan. It was to
prove as fatuous as it was undignified. " This Parliament,"
notes our annalist, " was led on by the episcopall and courte
faction, which thereafter proved to be that stone that after
wards crusht them in pieces, and the fuel of that flame which
sett all Brittaine afire not long thereafter."
Charles saw in the opposition a merely selfish, disloyal
faction, and royalist writers have invariably taken the same
view. Let us see, then, what their leaders had to say for
themselves in a second supplication penned by an advocate,
W. Haig, and afterwards discovered among the papers of
Lord Balmerino. They had been actuated, they declared, in
their antagonism to the obnoxious Acts only by a desire to

Protests of Opposition. 241
prevent alienation between king and people, which these
innovations were fitted to breed. They emphatically denied,
in the next place, that they had any private ends to serve in
so doing, and complained that the expression of the opinions
of a minority in Parliament should incur the royal censure.
Difference of opinion on a matter of such importance was,
they contended, inevitable in a parliamentary assembly, and
his majesty, they implied, if they did not say, had been guilty
of unfair tactics in his striving to suppress it. They recalled,
further, the fact that most of them had opposed the Perth
Articles in the Parliament of 1621, though they should have
left out some rather wild insinuations about his majesty's
patronage of Popery and Arminianism, and that their opposi
tion had been justified by the sequel. They appealed, too, to
the widespread suspicion of further designs against the
liberties of the Kirk, and roundly declared their conviction
that the conjunction of the two Acts was merely a device to
force them to vote for the surplice. Of this there could be no
reasonable doubt, and the order issued by Charles from
Whitehall on the 18th October 1633, directing the wearing
by the clergy of the English ecclesiastical vestments, amply
confirmed their suspicion. Such forcible exercise of the pre
rogative would, they repeated, jeopardise the loyalty of the
nation. "We did, therefore, dissent from the said Acts as
imposing a servitude upon this Church, and giving a ground
for introduction therein of infinit other new devices." The
request for the redress of grievances made by the Estates in
1625 and 1630 had, they objected further, been ignored, and
a petition presented by the aggrieved Presbyterian ministers
during his majesty's sojourn at Dalkeith had received no
answer. Moreover, they had been forbidden to meet and dis
cuss matters among themselves or represent their views to
the Lords of the Articles, and this inhibition, they rightly con
tended, " was against the constitution of a free Parliament."
And the election of the Lords was an innovation of which the
bishops took advantage to further their own " mysticall ends."
Finally, they complained, in regard to matters purely mun
dane, of the heavy taxation asked and granted in spite of
the Revocation, which was professedly intended to lessen in
future the burdens of the people, and they reminded him
VOL. III. Q

242 Indignation of Charles.
that they had shown their loyalty by voting it without
demur. The suppliants had stated what was substantially true,
but there was so much truth in their statement that Rothes
hesitated to incur the odium and danger of presenting it.
It accordingly remained in possession of Lord Balmerino, but
a surreptitiously made copy came into the hands of Spottis
wood, who promptly forwarded it to the king. Charles was
furious. The paper revealed to him the fact that, in spite of
Edinburgh demonstrations and acclamations, his proceedings
in the Scottish capital had roused widespread alarm and
antagonism. This was disconcerting enough, but what was
worse, some of these long-headed Scotsmen had seen through
his artful device in reference to ecclesiastical apparel, and had
even had the presumption to state it in black and white.
They had indeed done so in very respectful terms, but there
was no mistaking the tone of grievance and distrust that ran
through the document. Charles, of all men, did not relish
being brought to book. He had heard enough of grievances
and privileges from the English Parliament, and here was a
not inconsiderable minority of the Scottish Estates questioning
his doings, and invoking in their criticism the rights of
Assembly and Parliament. It was very aggravating to the
royal mind, no doubt, but to criticise the royal policy and
tactics was not necessarily sedition. Yet this was what
Charles saw in the temperately worded statement, and he
straightway sent orders to arrest Balmerino, and directed the
Lord Advocate to accuse the unlucky baron before the Earl of
Errol as Chief Justice. The Lord Advocate expatiated in
exaggerated terms on the heinous crime of presuming to
question his majesty's actions or motives. It was, of course,
his business to make out a strong case for his royal master,
but the egregiously exaggerated language in which he de
nounced the moderately worded objections of the suppliants
does not tend to convince the modern reader of the heinous-
ness of their detailed offences. Those who do not believe
with the Lord Advocate that the king must necessarily
always be in the right, will be inclined to ask for more proofs
and less assertions. These suppliants might not correctly
interpret what constituted Popery and what did not ; they

Vents his Resentment on Balmerino. 243
were in this respect labouring under the narrow prejudices of
the time ; but they were not wrong in their conclusion that
Charles was resolved to foist on the nation what to them and
the vast majority of their fellow-countrymen constituted
Popery, and what was both an anti-national ar^d an obnoxious
system. Bahnerino was not even the author of this vexatious
document. The author had promptly escaped to Holland.
But he was the possessor of it, and had refrained from dis
closing the facts to his majesty. He was accordingly shut up
in the castle of Edinburgh, and after a lengthy trial on a
charge of "leasing making," or sedition, found guilty by a
majority of eight to seven of concealing this seditious libel,
and sentenced to death. Charles, however, did not venture
to carry his resentment the length of the block. He yielded
to the representations of Traquair, and ultimately pardoned
and set him at liberty, " to the bishops' great displeasure and
discontent," adds our annalist. Laud, to his credit, appears to
have used his influence on the side of clemency.
The whole thing was merely an explosion of the vindictive-
ness of Charles, Spottiswood, and the more time-serving of
the bishops. The paper was at most a protest against certain
acts, by Members of Parliament, in vindication of their opinions,
and meant for presentation to the king, not for seditious pur
poses. It contained complaints based on what were obviously
matters of fact, and even if it presumed to criticise the king,
the petitioners had kept their criticisms to themselves. Bal
merino had only shown it in confidence to his private agent,
through whose remissness a copy of it had come into Spottis-
wood's possession. Charles would have been well advised
had he profited by its perusal to pause in that policy of
anglification which the petitioners condemned as fruitful of
grave evils and dangerous to himself. He chose, in his in
fatuated fashion, to mistake good advice for disloyalty, and to
disregard the signs of the times. He had unfortunately not
looked straight into the heart of his Scottish subjects. He
had only looked at Scottish ecclesiastical questions through
Episcopal and even Laudian spectacles. They might distort
what was fast becoming a national movement into the seditious
intrigues of a few malcontents. But if Balmerino and his

244 Attitude of the People.
fellow-suppliants were traitors, the people were traitors with
them. To the people they were champions of Kirk and
constitution, and they were not debarred by the charge against
the accused from openly showing their sympathy and admira
tion. "In all these dayes," says Row, "the commone people
avowedlie with loud and high lifted up voices were praying
for my Lord Balmerino, and for all those that loved him and
his cause, and prayed for a plague to come upon them that
had the blame of his trouble ; and from doing of this the
magistrates could not possibly get them stayed." Some of
his partisans were not men to stop short at praying. They
swore that if Balmerino were sacrificed to the vindictiveness
of the king and the bishops, they would avenge his blood on
the heads of the majority of his judges, and burn their houses
into the bargain. Even Drummond of Hawthornden, Episco
palian, poet, and recluse as he was, seized his indignant pen
to write a scathing denunciation of so vindictive, impolitic,
and arbitrary a proceeding.
SOURCES. — Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vol. v. ;
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vol. i. (Second
Series), edited by Professor Masson ; vols. ii. to v., edited by
Professor Hume Brown ; The Earl of Stirling's Register of
Royal Letters, edited by Rev. Ch. Rogers (1885) ; Row,
History of the Kirk of Scotland ; Calderwood, History of
the Kirk of Scotland ; Sir James Balfour (Lyon King , of
Arms to Charles I. and IL), Historical Works, vol. ii. (1824);
Spalding, History of the Troubles in Scotland, 1624-45
(Bannatyne Club and edition of 1830); Dalrymple (Lord
Hailes), Memorials and Letters Relating to the History of
Britain in the Reign of Charles I. (1766) ; Rushworth, Collec
tions, vol. ii. (scrappy in reference to Scottish affairs) ; Burton,
History of Scotland, vol. vi. ; Masson, Drummond of Haw
thornden (1873).

CHAPTER XII.
The National Covenant and the Abolition of
Episcopacy (1636-1639).
EVENTS now hurried king and people to an open rupture.
The appointment of Archbishop Spottiswood as Lord
Chancellor in the beginning of 1635 renewed the outcry
against ambitious prelates, which their growing influence in
Government, Privy Council, and Parliament had excited. To
the nobility the appointment was obnoxious as injurious to
their interests, and even so staunch a loyalist as Lord Napier
complained of such innovations as hurtful to both Church and
State. To the Presbyterians it was simply scandalous that
Christ's ministers should take upon them secular offices to the
detriment of their spiritual function. The Court of High
Commission was re-established, conferring inquisitorial powers
on the bishop of the diocese and six assessors. On the back
of this Episcopal aggrandisement came the report of the
intention to restore abbey lands to the Church, and thus
deprive their lay holders for the benefit of the bishops, and
though Charles only intended to give up those in possession
of the crown and desisted in deference to the protests of
Traquair, the Treasurer Depute, the report served to intensify
the aristocratic discontent. Last, but not least, came the
Canons and the Service Book. Charles and Laud would fain
have stipulated the acceptance of the English liturgy, but
they were forced by the representations of the majority of the
Scottish bishops to abandon their design and be content
with an approximation. This approximation was the result
of the collaboration of Laud, who had done his utmost to in
sert as much of the Anglican liturgy as he could, and even to
add some of his special ritualistic nostrums, and of some of
the Scottish bishops, who strove to absorb as little of it as
possible.

246 The Service Book.
It was thus a hybrid, but it was a hybrid that was not
fitted to flourish in Scottish soil. It was issued from the
press in April 1637, fifteen months after the publication of
the " Book of Canons," which was intended, to prepare the way
for its appearance, and sanctioned Laud's High Church views
as to the altar and confession as well as declared the royal
prerogative in matters ecclesiastical. It immediately aroused
the bitterest opposition, and' in three months it was blasted by
the storm of popular wrath. This anger was not inspired by
any deep-rooted hatred of a liturgy, though many ministers
preferred to pray as the spirit moved them. Knox's " Book of
Common Order " had been in general use since the Reforma
tion. But Knox's book was simplicity itself, and was merely
meant as a guide to the ministers. Moreover, it had the sanction
of the Kirk, and had no savour of Anglican ritualism in it.
Here, on the other hand, was an elaborate concoction, conceived
largely in the Laudian spirit and imposed by royal authority
as the sole expression of the people's devotions. It was
obligatory, though it had not been submitted to even all the
bishops, let alone the General Assembly, and it left no room
for that spontaneous worship which, to the mass of the
ministers as well as the people, was of the essence of true
religion. Equally objectionable, it was " made in England,"
for the half-dozen Scottish bishops who collaborated with
Laud did not represent even the Scottish hierarchy, far less
the Scottish Kirk, and had been to a large extent clay in the
hands of the potter at Canterbury. National as well as
religious feeling was thus wounded to the quick. The Scots
might take their theology from Geneva, but Canterbury
was the last place to which they would think of going, even
on national grounds, for their worship. It might be patriotic
bigotry, but this kind of bigotry is a dangerous thing to
tamper with. And if the people had been able to look into
the correspondence of Laud with the Scottish bishops, their
bigotry would only have derived fresh stimulus from the
domineering tone of the English Primate in matters that
concerned Scotland, not England. Charles deserves his share
of the blame, for Charles put himself unreservedly in Laud's
hands in this, as in other ecclesiastical matters. With his
usual, tactlessness and supercilious opinionativeness, he treated

Laud's Meddlesomeness. 247
Laud rather than Spottiswood as virtual Primate of Scotland.
Even so, it might have occurred to the Archbishop of Canter
bury that in dealing with Scotsmen he ought to have adopted
the role of an adviser, not of a master. On the contrary, he
directs Spottiswood and his fellow-prelates in his letters as if
he were laying down the law to his own province, and these
prelates must have been craven Scots indeed to submit to
such lordly utterances. The wiser and less invertebrate of
them had indeed resisted the, demand for the English liturgy
pure and simple, supported though it was by the king him
self, on the ground, as ^Clarendon informs us, that Scotland
would never submit " to be reduced to be but as a province
of England, and subject to their laws and government." They
would have consulted their own dignity and acted a manly
part if they had plainly told Laud to mind his own business,
and intimated to Charles that they would receive communi
cations on this subject from himself, not from the Primate
of England. They were too subservient and dependent to
adopt such an honourable course, and they could not com
plain if the people regarded them as the mere henchmen of
Canterbury. Their own letters amply bear out the popular
belief. If Charles, as appears to have been the case, expected that
there would be a general, if a sullen, compliance with his
will, he must have been rudely awakened by the dramatic, if
riotous scene evoked by the reading of the liturgy in St Giles'
Kirk, on the 23rd of July 1637. , To the vast majority of the
worshippers in St Giles' on that fateful Sunday morning,
especially the feminine part of them, the Service Book which
the Dean of Edinburgh proceeded to read was equivalent to
the mass. The dean's voice was promptly drowned by the
shrill cries of the women, and one of them, apocryphally
known as Jenny Geddes, fairly took the wind out of his sails
by hurling her stool at his head. He dodged the missile, but
he found it impossible to go on amid the shrieks with which
his tormentors insulted his person and cursed the Service
Book. " Son of a witch," " Ill-hanged thief," alternated with
"The mass is entered among us," "Baal is in the kirk."
Still worse fared the bishop, Dr David Lindsay, who ascended
the pulpit to remonstrate with the rioters. His appearance

248 , The Riot in St Giles'.
only aggravated the tumult. Stools, Bibles, and other missiles
were thrown at him. " Nor were their tongues idler than their
hands," adds one contemporary reporter, Gordon, parson of
Rothiemay. He was shouted down with such compliments
as " False antichristian," " Wolfe," '' Beastlie belliegod,"
" Craftie fox." Archbishop Spottiswood and other high
dignitaries attempted in vain to second the bishop's exhorta
tions, and Spottiswood was at length forced to appeal to the
magistrates to clear the church of the rioters. The effort
was at last successful ; the doors were locked, but the ejected
multitude kept up the demonstration outside, and the service
proceeded amid the crashing of the glass in the windows and
the battering of Presbyterian fists on the doors. One woman
who had escaped ejection, and had stopped her ears with her
fingers that she might not hear the idolatrous sound of the
dean's voice, gave the finishing touch to this serio-comic
scene. The response of Amen on the part of a young man
behind her was too loud even for the device which she had in
her desperation adopted in self-defence against idolatry. In
her fury she dashed her Bible in his face, with the cry, " False
thief, is there no other part of the kirk to say mass in, but
thou must sing it in my lug ? "
On emerging from the church the bishop was set upon by
the crowd, and only saved from further maltreatment by the
Earl of Wemyss' servants, who dragged him from the midst
of his pursuers into their master's lodging. At the close of
the afternoon service, which had to be conducted under the
protection of an armed guard, he was again the object of the
fury of the crowd as he returned in the Earl of Roxburgh's
coach. His progress was greeted with curses and stones, and
it was only by drawing their swords that the earl's servants
kept his pursuers from venting their anger on his person.
This historic riot might be an outburst of ignorant pre
judice, which saw Popery where Popery was not intended.
But there was more in the antagonism to the liturgy than a
question of certain forms and ceremonies. Even if it had
been but a question of forms, there was cause enough, in view
of the state of public opinion, for apprehending serious mis
chief. It was a question, as we have seen, of the right of the
king to overrule, by his sole authority, the consciences of his

General Antagonism. 249
Scottish subjects, and was complicated by national as well
as religious feeling. The riot in St Giles' was scandalous
enough, especially from the Episcopal point of view, but it
was only an extreme explosion of the general disgust, and
Charles and his advisers had done their best, in spite of warn
ings, to evoke it. The Privy Council might by proclamation
condemn it and arrest the ringleaders, and might minimise
its importance to the king. Charles was ere long to learn that
the riot was the beginning of a national, not merely of a local
movement. In most of the other Edinburgh churches, dis
sent, though less violent, was none the less apparent, and the
ministers hesitated to continue to read the obnoxious service
for fear of their lives. Archbishop Spottiswood was in
fact forced to waive the obligation to read in the meantime.
Throughout the country the refusal was well-nigh unanimous.
In Rothes' " Relation " mention is made of about half-a-
dozen instances of compliance, and three of the towns men
tioned were Episcopal capitals. The ministers in general
both refused to buy the book and read it in accordance with
the royal injunction, and when any of them ventured to argue
in its favour, as Mr Annan was rash enough to do in a
sermon before the Synod of Glasgow, he was quickly made
aware of the danger of his hardihood. Here, for instance, is
the account from Baillie's " Letters " of how the women of
Glasgow appreciated Annan's sermon. " After supper, while
needles'slie he will goe to visit the bishop ... he is no sooner
on the causey, at nine o'clock on a mirk night, but some
hundredths of enraged women of all qualities are about him,
with neaves and staves and peates, but no stones ; they beat
him sore ; his cloak, ruffe, hat were rent ; however, upon his
cryes and candles set out from many windows, he escaped all
bloody wounds ; yet he was in great danger even of killing.
The tumult was so great that it was not thought meet to
search either the plotters or actors of it, for numbers of the
best qualitie would have been found guiltie."
Charles sent orders to repress such mischief-makers, and
to enforce the liturgy. To him these outbursts were the
work of a few wire-pullers in high places. He had, in fact,
expected that there would be no opposition to his will, and he
was disposed to see what he had expected. There might be,

250 Petitions for Withdrawal.
as Baillie implies and Bishop Guthry asserts, clandestine
influences at work in Edinburgh as in Glasgow. The spirit
of resistance was none the less general and spontaneous. It
is impossible otherwise to explain the almost simultaneous
outcry from end to end of the country which found vent, not
in riot, but in dogged, systematic protest. Even the Privy
Council was fain to confess the fact within little more than a
month after the St Giles' outbreak. The petitions which
began to pour in from all classes, and nearly every quarter
of the kingdom, had quickly changed their view of the situa
tion. Many of its members were, moreover, sick of the whole
business, and at open feud with their Episcopal colleagues.
"We find ourselves," they wrote to Charles, on the 28th
August, " farre by our expectation, surprised with the clamours
and fears of your majestie's subjects from almost all parts
and corners of the kingdome ; and v that even of those who
otherwayes has heretofore lived in obedience and con-
formitie to your majesty's lawes both in ecclesiastical and
civile business, and thus we finde it so to increase that we
conceive it to be a matter of high consequence, in respect
of the generall murmur and grudge in all sortes of people for
urging of the practice of the Service Booke, as the like hath
not been heard in this kingdom." They did not venture to
suggest what must have seemed the only remedy — the with
drawal of the obnoxious liturgy. They referred the remedy
to his majesty's " own great wisdom." Charles' wisdom failed
him at this as at other critical junctures of his life. His only
remedy was an angry missive commanding the Council to
enforce obedience not merely in the capital, but in every
diocese in the kingdom.
By this time the petitions had swelled to sixty-eight, and
in reply (20th September), the Council sent him a list of them
and some samples as an evidence of the difficulties of a situa
tion with which they were doing their best, in accordance with
the royal injunction, to cope. They also laid stress on the
arguments of the petitioners which, to any mind not warped
by absolute subservience to the royal prerogative, must have
appeared forcible enough. In that, for instance, presented by
Alexander Henderson, minister of Leuchars, for himself and
some of his Fifeshire brethren, there was no fanatic declama-

Specimen Arguments. 251
tions against Popery, but a calm and firm appeal to constitu
tional right. Here is the gist of it : In matters pertaining to
the worship of God we are not bound to blind obedience.
We, therefore, object to being enjoined to buy and use copies
of this liturgy before we have had an opportunity of exa
mining it. We further object to this liturgy, thus forced upon
us, for the following reasons. It lacks the warrant of both
General Assembly and Parliament, whose sanction in matters
of worship has been deemed necessary since the Reformation.
The liberties of the Kirk and its form of worship have the sanc
tion of Acts of Assembly and Parliament and were confirmed
by the Parliaments of 1567 and 1633. The Kirk of Scotland
is free and independent, and its ministers know best what is
good for it and the people. This book departs in most essential
points from the worship of this Kirk, approximates the Romish
Kirk, which is as antichristian now as it was at the Reforma
tion, and will aggravate the contention about ceremonies
hitherto prevailing. The people, nurtured in a different form
of worship, will have none of it, and, therefore, we beg you to
suspend your " letters of horning " against ministers — other
wise expressed, prosecutions for refusal to adopt it.
There was common-sense as well as conscience in this
document, and if Charles refused to listen to such an appeal,
he deserved to suffer the consequences. There was, after all,
no reason whatever why he should presume to force Presby
terians to worship in a form that was distasteful to them, in
deference to the crotchets of an overbearing English ecclesi
astic. Their worship would probably be all the more sincere
for its simplicity, and sincerity is the main thing in the relation
of the soul to its God. It is not surprising that the Privy
Council was shaken by such arguments, and the man who
persisted in ignoring their force must have been a bigoted
ecclesiastical partisan indeed. Unfortunately, Charles was an
ecclesiastical partisan in Scotland as in England, and could
on no account bring himself to acknowledge the point of such
objections. For him it was a question of asserting his will,
not listening to arguments, and his will must be done, whether
the Scottish people agreed or not. " I mean to be obeyed,"
was his response. The Scottish people, nevertheless, did by
no means agree, and it was becoming more and more evident

252 Mob Demonstrations.
that if Charles insisted on its agreement, he would first have
to conquer it. As accumulative evidence thereof, the petitions
continued to pour in on the Council, and petitioners of all
classes — nobles, gentry, ministers, burgesses — flocked in in
creasing numbers to the capital to support them.
Edinburgh rioted a second time in protest against the
refusal of the provost to allow it to petition the Council with
the rest (25 th September). Nay, on the 18th October, it burst
into forcible uproar a third time in defiance of several royal
proclamations, published the preceding day, and commanding
more especially those who had come to petition and protest
to be gone to their homes on pain of rebellion, and both
Council and Session to remove from the rebellious capital to
Linlithgow. The mob which, on this occasion, was certainly
not composed exclusively of "the rascal multitude," with
shouts of " God confound the Service Book," hunted the
Bishop of Galloway into the Council house, knocked down
Traquair who attempted to interfere and forced him to seek
refuge with the bishop in the Council house, compelled the
magistrates to comply with its demands, and only desisted
from further violence against Lord Treasurer and bishop in
deference to the entreaty of the nobility who guarded them to
their houses. The mob was master of the situation, and the
mob was practically equivalent to the people of Scotland.
Even those who would fain have substituted argument for
violence were constrained to admit that the Edinburgh rioters
only focussed the revolutionary spirit of the nation at large.
Witness the following extract from Baillie : " There was in our
land never such ane appearance of a sturr (revolt) ; the whole
people thinks Poperie at the doores ; the scandalous pamphlets
which comes daily new from England adde oil to this flame ;
no man may speak anything in publick for , the king's part,
except he would have himself marked for a sacrifice to be
killed one day. I think our people possessed with a bloodie
devill far above anything that ever I could have imagined,
though the mass in Latin had been presented. The ministers,
who has the command of their mind, does disavow their
unchristian humour, but are noways so zealous against the
devill of their furie, as they are against the seducing spirit of
the bishops. For myself, I think God, to revenge the crying

Antagonism to the Bishops. 253
sins of all estates and professions, is going to execute His
long-denounced threatenings, and to give us over unto mad
ness that we may every one shoot our swords in our neigh
bour's hearts. . . . The barricades of Paris, the Catholick
League of France is much before my eyes ; but I hope the
devill shall never finde a Duke of Guise to lead the bands."
" My fears in my former (letter)," he adds a little later, " went
no further than to an ecclesiastick separation, but now I am
more affrayit for a bloodie civill war."
Instead of obeying the proclamation to disperse, the peti
tioners presented a general supplication — their Magna Charta
as Baillie calls it — not only condemning the Service Book and
the Canons, but arraigning the bishops who, they contended,
had been guilty of prejudicing the mind of the king against
his subjects, undermining the constitution and doctrine of the
Kirk, breaking the laws, and sowing strife. Furthermore, as
accused persons, they should not sit in the Council as judges
in this cause. The bishops, they implied, if they did not say,
were the real rebels, and were responsible for the outburst of
popular violence.
What they only implied, Rothes did not hesitate to say.
" If any fault or violence had been committed by any of the
subjects in resisting or seeking the abolitione of that book,
they might retort the bishops frameing it and the Councill's
authorising (it) to be the first and principal causes." And
even Traquair had not hesitated to write in much the same
strain (7th August) to the Marquess of Hamilton in ' London.
" Certainly some of the leading men among them (the
Episcopal clergy) are so violent and forward, and many times
without ground and true judgment, that their want of right
understanding how to compass business of this nature and
weight doth often breed us manie difficulties, and their rash
and foolish expressions, and sometimes attempts both in
public and private, have bred such a fear and jealousie in the
hearts of manie that I am confident, if his majesty were
rightly informed thereof, he would blame them, and justly
think that from this and the like proceedings arise the
grounds of many mistakes among us."
The Council refused to receive the supplication, but to rid
the capital of the crowd of suppliants, two of its members,

254 Organisation of the Opposition.
the Bishop of Galloway and Hay, the Lord Clerk Register,
suggested that they should choose commissioners to represent
them. The petitioners agreed. It was a fateful suggestion,
for, contrary to the intention of its authors, it led to the
organisation of the movement. Rothes, musing in his pious
fashion, saw in it a providential inspiration — " a cord twisted
by a hand from above." In view of results, it was, at all
events, epoch-making. These commissioners, representing
nobles, gentry, ministers, and burgesses respectively, were re
appointed at a subsequent convention, on the 18th Novem
ber, and the significance of this fourfold commission lies in
the fact that it developed into the four Tables. As against
a Council whose lay and ecclesiastical members were divided
by jealousy and suspicion, as against a king who possessed
the will to command without the means to enforce, the peti
tioners could pit an organisation which henceforth could
rally the nation to carry out its policy, and only needed to
be developed to become a perfect revolutionary agency. The
organisation was, too, fortunate in its leaders. In Rothes
it could claim one of the shrewdest, most indefatigable,
and ablest heads in Scotland. Second only in activity and
ability was Lord Loudon, forcible in argument, eloquent,
and resolute. Montrose, Cassilis, Home, Eglinton, Lothian,
Dalhousie, Lindesay, Balmerino were equally active. Among
the ministers, Henderson of Leuchars and Dickson of Irvine
lent it the strength of their learning and enthusiasm. Among
the lawyers, Johnstone of Warriston stood pre-eminent for
his legal knowledge, his unbending principles, and his
inexhaustible zeal. We miss as yet the most formidable
recruit of all, Lord Lorn, future Earl of Argyll, who as a
member of the Council, ostensibly supported the Govern
ment, though like Traquair he was no friend of the bishops.
Traquair, for instance, had already assured Rothes of his
sympathy, while alleging the duty which his office laid upon
him of trying to bring about a compromise. The Lord
Advocate, Sir Thomas Hope, was an active, if secret,
partisan. The leaders and their followers intended no revolution,
for they rightly claimed that they were only vindicating the
rights of Kirk and nation against 'a faction which had misled

Profess Loyalty and Maintain their Ground. 255
the king and transgressed these rights. Charles, they pro
fessed, had only to be truly informed of such wrong-doing to
acknowledge the justice of their cause. This might be a
faulty interpretation of his majesty's conduct and senti
ments, was, in fact, merely meant to save his honour in the
eyes of the Council and the nation. The suppliants as well
as the Council knew well enough that Charles had not only
sanctioned, but approved the Service Book. "The king,"
Laud had written to Traquair on the nth September, "to
my knowledge hath carefully looked over and approved every
word in the liturgy." The popular leaders would fain
have preserved their loyalty by persisting in the assumption
that Charles was merely misled by a faction of intriguing
ecclesiastics. At the same time these men were determined
to go the length of resistance if Charles persisted in pre
ferring his own will to that of the nation. Charles did per
sist. He resented their combination as rebellion, and he was
mortified by the popular outbreak which had led up to it and
which he had proved powerless to repress or punish. By his
directions the Council issued a proclamation from Linlithgow,
on the 7th December. It contained no answer to the petition
of his subjects, but a general assurance that he abhorred
Popery and adhered to Protestantism as presently professed
in Scotland, and that he intended to do " nothing contrary to
the laudable laws of his native country." To his Scottish
subjects this was mere trifling, and their commissioners,
brushing aside Traquair's laudation of the royal magnanimity,
answered firmly that they would be satisfied with nothing
less than the revocation of the Service Book, the Canons, and
the High Commission, and the unequivocal recognition of
the rights of Kirk and Parliament in these matters. They
refused with equal firmness to break up their organisation
to please the king, or to treat separately with the Council
on behalf of their constituents, forced the Council to grant
them a hearing at Dalkeith, on the 21st December, and
handed in their supplication once more, accompanied by a
protest against the slanders of their traducers, and a formal
declinator of the jurisdiction of the Episcopal members of
the Council as parties to the case. To defend the laws and
religion of the kingdom could be no rebellion, urged Loudon

256 Charles declares Responsibility.
in a speech in support of their demands, and their action
could only be agreeable to the king, who had declared that
he intended to maintain them. They were, added Rothes,
only too eager to preserve the loyalty of the people, in spite
of the machinations of those who had both wronged the king
and tried the patience of his subjects.
Once more the Council referred the matter to the king,
and Traquair himself posted off to London to attempt to
bring him to reason. He did his best to convince him of the
strength of the religious and national feeling behind the
petitioners and their commissioners, and warned him that he
could only coerce the nation with an army of 40,000 men.
Charles would neither be convinced nor warned. His reso
lution was fortified by the representations of Spottiswood,
who reminded him how his grandmother had dealt with re
calcitrant nobles, and advised him to imitate her example.
Traquair accordingly returned with another proclamation,
which left no dubiety as to his intentions. On the 19th
February 1638 the voice of the Lyon Herald proclaimed to
all Scotland from the cross of Stirling that Charles himself,
not the bishops, was responsible for the Service Book.
" Nothing," proclaimed Charles, " passed therein but what was
seen and approved by us." The petition and proceedings of
the suppliants were, he continued, derogatory to his authority,
and deserved his high censure. Nevertheless, he would over.
look this reprehensible conduct, if they refrained from further
agitation and immediately dispersed to their homes. If not,
they would incur the guilt of treason and be dealt with
accordingly. Charles was now to discover that times had changed since
Queen Mary had denounced Moray and Argyll as traitors
and spiritedly driven them across the Border. Scarcely had
the voice of Lyon Herald died away than Johnstone of
Warriston, who had ferreted out beforehand the tenor of the
proclamation, stood forth, along with the Earl of Home v and
Lord Lindesay, to protest in the name of the commissioners.
They demanded the right to present directly their grievances
to the king, declined once more to recognise the bishops as
judges in this cause, appealed for a fair trial of it before a
competent tribunal, refused to recognise any Act or pro-

Protestations against Proclamation. 257

t>

clamation of the Privy Council as long as the bishops were
present, protested that refusal to admit innovations, intro
duced contrary to Acts of Parliament or Assembly, should
not make them liable to any penalty, disclaimed all blame
for whatever " inconvenience " should follow, and insisted that
their only aim was to preserve the true reformed religion and
the laws and liberties of the country.
At every market cross in Scotland where the proclama
tion was made there were representatives of the petitioners to
repeat the protestation. Even in the Episcopal stronghold
of Aberdeen, a party of Frasers and Forbeses showed both
their family enmity to the Marquess of Huntly, who carried
out the royal command, and their zeal agamst the bishops by
testifying for the liberties and rights of Kirk and people. At
Edinburgh, where Johnstone, with Rothes, Montrose, and
other nobles again replied, the crowd indulged in jeers at
Lyon Herald's expense, and refused to make way for the
royal officers till the reading of the protest was finished.
The very presence of the commissioners and their followers
in such numbers sufficed to show the nullity of Charles'
inhibition. " In my judgment," wrote Traquair to Hamilton
in reference to these scenes (26th February), " it will be as
easy to establish the Missal in this kingdom as this Service
Book." To inhibit public meeting in defiance of the law's
was, they held, absolutely nugatory ; they did not go the
length of defying the king point blank ; they considerately
assumed in the meantime that the proclamation was the act
of the Privy Council, and more especially of its Episcopal
members, and they promptly issued appeals, not only to the
petitioners, but to all persons of influence throughout the
country, to convene in their thousands in the capital. " We
have heir in present consideration," wrote Rothes to the
latter, " the most important business that ever concerned this
natione, both in respect of the dangerous estate wherein our
religione, our Kirk, liberties, lives, and fortunes presentlie
stands by these innovations and divers proclamations, and
other courses dailie intendit and plotted by our adversaries, not
only to restraine our libertie, but also to take from us all
means of ordinarie and lawfull remedy. Needing serious
advisement for taking a generall course for preventing the
VOL. HI. R

258 The National Covenant.
imminent evills that concerns all subjects, it is thoght fitt
that all considerable persons should be once heir to receive
true informatione of the business that so nearlie concerneth all
that love the truth, the welfare of their posteritie and estate,
how mean soever, and desire to enjoy the libertie of free
subjects, that they may give their opinione heirin."
The issue before the country had thus become a political
as well as a religious one. To accept the Service Book by
royal dictation was to surrender constitutional and legal rights
as well as to betray religious convictions. It is for " the
liberty of free subjects " against power arbitrarily wielded, as
well as for what they regard as religious truth that these men
protest, and since neither protests nor supplications will avail,
they will take what remedy they are legally entitled to. To
this end they proceeded to perfect their organisation and
marshal the various classes of the nation in four representa
tive committees, consisting each of four members from the
nobles, gentry, ministers, and burgesses. These committees
further proceeded to discuss and formulate an ultimatum
which should at the same time be a national bond of " union
and communion," as Rothes calls it. This ultimatum gave
rise to considerable debate, for some ministers, like Baillie,
were not prepared to forswear the bishops root and branch.
Others objected that the Perth Articles had received the
sanction of Parliament. Others had scruples about resistance.
Some of the Privy Councillors were, too, busy trying to sow
dissension. At length, after much argumentation by Rothes,
Loudon, and other leading spirits, a unanimous resolution
was reached, to revive the Covenant or " Band " of 1 581, with
additions suitable to the occasion, drawn up by Johnstone of
Warriston and Alexander Henderson, and revised by Rothes,
Loudon, and Balmerino. " This union," notes Baillie, of this
harmonious conclusion, "was the great pillar of the cause."
It is couched in a very loyal strain. The Covenanters still
assume that the king is with them in their endeavour to
maintain the laws, religion, and liberty of the kingdom. It
was not in its form, but in its note of invincible resolution to
carry out a policy hateful to Charles that their offence to an
arbitrary king lay. First came the confession of their faith,
as in 1 58 1, containing one of the most sweeping condemna1-

Its Main Stipulations. 259
tions of Popery ever penned. These Covenanters damned
the whole papal system — authority, doctrine, decree, ritual,
practice — everything in fact wherein Popery differs from the
Scriptures pure and simple. They protested their sincerity,
professed to be moved by no " worldly respect," but solely by
conscience, asserted their whole-hearted loyalty to the king,
and pledged themselves to defend his person and authority in
the maintenance of the Gospel, the liberty of their country,
the administration of justice, and the punishment of iniquity.
They then recited the Acts of Parliament disestablishing
Popery and establishing Protestantism, and guaranteeing the
rights , and liberties of the subjects as well as the royal
authority. Then follows the Covenant or Band as modified
to suit the circumstances. Noblemen, barons, gentlemen,
burgesses, ministers, and commons unite in solemnly de
claring that they will maintain the true religion, as confessed
above, and forbear the practice of all innovations and approba
tion of the corruptions of the Kirk's government until they
shall be tried by a free Assembly and Parliament. These inno
vations, they declare, are contrary to the Reformation and the
Acts of Parliament cited, tend to re-establish popish tyranny,
and are subversive of their laws ,and liberties. In swearing to
maintain the true religion against these errors and corruptions,
they have no desire to attempt anything to the dishonour of
God or the diminution of the king's greatness and authority.
On the contrary, they promise and swear to defend the royal
person and authority in defending the religion, liberties, and
laws of the kingdom. At the same time, they will assist one
another in the prosecution of this cause " against all sorts of
persons whatsoever" (the king presumably included), with
stand any attempt to allure or threaten them into division,
and co-operate in all lawful means to this end. In so doing
they would not, however, be accounted rebels. To maintain
their religion and their laws cannot be rebellion., "Neither
do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination, or
what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would
put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and
arising from our unfeigned desire to maintain the true
worship of God, the majesty of our king, and the peace of
this kingdom for the common happiness of ourselves and

260 The Signing of the Covenant.
posterity." Finally, they undertake to endeavour to live in
accordance with their profession in all godliness, soberness,
and righteousness.
Such is the document that the various classes, in the order
enumerated, subscribed in Greyfriars' Church and graveyard
on the last day of February and the opening days of March.
The scene was certainly one of the most moving episodes in
Scottish history. It was two o'clock in the afternoon of a
winter's day when Rothes, Loudon, Henderson, Johnstone —
the main actors both in the prelude to the drama and in the
drama itself — appeared in the church. They found it thronged
by their fellow-suppliants from all parts of the land. After a
fervent prayer by Henderson, Loudon delivered a stirring
address in support of the action of the Tables. Thereupon
Johnstone rose with the momentous parchment — " an ell
square '' — in his hands. There was breathless attention as he
recited those terrible sentences in condemnation not only of
Popery, but of all the innovations which Charles and his
father had foisted on Kirk and nation these thirty years past,
with perhaps the connivance of some of those present. Every
man there must have known that, despite the profession of
loyalty to the king, he was being asked, in signing this for
midable parchment, to condemn without modification the
arbitrary tactics of both recent and previous years. It might
not, from the Covenanters' standpoint, be rebellion; it -cer
tainly was defiance- — defiance not only of the bishops, but of
the monarch who had unequivocally declared his sponsorship
of the Service Book. It behoved each man, therefore, to
ponder what he did, and the voice of Rothes next broke the
silence which followed the recital. " Let those who have
doubts make them known," at the same time inviting them
to conference with Loudon and Henderson at the east and
west end of the church respectively. The doubters were
found to be few, and these few were soon satisfied. It was
four o'clock before the aged Earl of Sutherland stepped to
the table to swear and subscribe. He was followed by Sir
Andrew Murray of Balvaird, minister of Ebdie in Fife — " two
noblemen," remarks Gordon (no well-wisher of the Covenant),
" who, out of zeale to their professione, without any bye-end,
thought it ane happiness to be amongst the first subscribents

Impressive Scene. 261
and swearers to the Covenant." From four o'clock till eight
in the twilight of that winter day nobles and gentlemen filed
forward to add their names. On the morrow, after an oppor
tunity had again been afforded for the resolution of doubts, it
was signed in the Tailors' Hall by the ministers, over three
hundred in number, and the representatives of burghs. It was
thereafter carried round the city to receive the signatures of the
people, " every one contesting who might be first." Tradition
has added a fitting sequel to the final scene amid the grave
stones of Greyfriars' churchyard, where the Covenant lay to
receive the signatures of the multitude that the church could
not contain. Some, we are told, signed with their blood ;
some added " Till death " ; many melted into tears, and all
seem to have been profoundly impressed by the gravity and
the solemnity of the transaction. It is impossible to believe
that this transaction was merely the prearranged artificial
performance that the enemies of the Covenant would fain
make it out to be.
It was, indeed, a political as well as a religious transac
tion, and in that crowd there were, likely enough, men who
were hypocrites in religion, time-servers in politics. But it
would be mean as well as narrow to look upon the whole
thing as the work of a few designing malcontents, who merely
used the appeal to religion and liberty to transverse a Govern
ment which they disliked. The tone of the document itself
is as far removed from hypocrisy, from mere policy as can be
imagined. Mere politicians do not indulge in such language
— the offspring of the soul rather than the brain. It is, in
fact, the language of men who believe to the verge of
fanaticism in the Reformation, believe so intensely in their
beliefs that they can see nothing but damnation for all who
differ from them. This was narrow, too narrow, for a more
tolerant age ; it was not hypocritical. It has, too, a genuine
ring of devotion to constitutional and legal rights, of resolu
tion to defend them as a heritage worthy of free men.
Charles had so flagrantly outraged both constitutional rights
and national sentiment that it needs no credulity to believe
that these Covenanters, whether noble or non-noble, felt what
they said on this head. He that does not see reality both in
the document itself and in the circumstances of its subscrip-

262 Strength of the Movement.
tion must be predisposed not to see it. The politician might
ere long find his place in the movement ; at this stage the
predominant note is that of conviction, enthusiasm. The
wave of conviction, enthusiasm swept over the land. In
many parts of the country the work of subscription was
equally spontaneous, though the influence of the nobility and
gentry doubtless helped to swell the number of signatures in
some of the rural districts. In the larger towns and the
burghs there was as much alacrity as at Edinburgh. There
was some opposition, however, notably at Aberdeen, where
the Episcopal element was strong, and the Marquess of Huntly
was all-powerful, and the Covenanters, if we may trust our
Episcopal annalist, were not always scrupulous and forbear
ing in dealing with this opposition. On the other hand, we
have the testimony of Rothes that none was asked to sub
scribe except those who were admitted to the sacrament, and
the opposition, south of the Grampians at any rate, seems, as
even our Episcopal annalist virtually admits, to have been
insignificant. "The greater part of the kingdom have sub
scribed," wrote Dr Mitchell, one of the ministers of
Edinburgh, to the Bishop of Raphoe on the 19th March,
" and the rest are daylie subscribing." The best testimony to
the strength of the movement is to be found in the attitude
of the bishops. " Now," said Spottiswood, " all that we have
been doing these thirty years past is thrown down at once."
Spottiswood, Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, and some others who
had been most forward in carrying out the royal will, took to
flight across the Border. Three others renounced their office.
Guthry, Bishop of Moray, alone played a manly part, and
stuck to his guns. " The very name of bishop," wrote
Mitchell, " is more odious than the devill's."
The Council saw nothing for it but to represent to Charles
the impossibility of enforcing the proclamation. They asked
him to take the grievances of the Covenanters into considera
tion, and meanwhile suspend the Service Book. The cove
nanting leaders, on their side, sent a request, through the
chief Scottish noblemen at London, the Duke of Lennox, the
Marquess of Hamilton, and the Earl of Morton, for the con
vocation of a General Assembly and a Parliament. Charles
would not look at their supplication. From his point of view

Futile Negotiations. 263
the Covenant was an unspeakable offence in spite of its pro
fession of loyalty. It plainly meant that he was altogether in
the wrong in his government of Scotland, and must face to
the right-about in obedience to the virtual command of the
Covenanters. It was simply " a standard of rebellion," and
his first impulse was to entertain Spottiswood's proposal to
let loose Huntly and the northern clans on its rebellious
adherents. But the deputies of the Covenanters had been
busy in these northern parts, and had persuaded a large
number of the people from Aberdeen to Caithness to sub
scribe. He sent for Traquair, Lorn, and Roxburgh, the chief
members of the Council./ They could only confirm what they
had written, and Lorn, to the disgust of Laud, spoke out
plainly against both bishops and Service Book, and even the
Perth Articles. It was evident that unless Charles was pre
pared to appeal to the sword, he must listen to the Council's
representations. Not being prepared, he determined to
negotiate, and for this purpose commissioned the Marquess
of Hamilton to Scotland with a declaration of his terms. He
would modify the High Commission, and would not press the
Service Book except in such a fair and legal manner as
would show that he intended no innovation in religion and
laws. But the Scots must, as a preliminary, renounce the
Covenant. He added a private instruction empowering him
to suspend the Acts of Council enjoining the Service Book,
to proclaim all who refused obedience rebels, and to intimate
the king's intention to vindicate in person his authority by
force. Charles, it was evident, would not look at the situation
through/ the eyes of his councillors, or even of Spottiswood,
who told him that it was futile to ask for the renunciation of
the Covenant. To demand its surrender was to send the
marquess on a fool's errand. But might not the Commis
sioner be able to divide the Covenanters ? His hopes were
speedily blasted by Hamilton's letter. Hamilton found them
by no means eager to treat at all. Not a man of them
turned up at Berwick to receive and convoy him to the
capital. Even at Dalkeith they refused his summons to a
conference, though they turned out in their thousands from
all parts of the land to show him their strength as well as

264 Hamilton's Impotence.
due respect, when he at length entered the capital on the 8th
June. When he came to close quarters in Holyrood Palace,
he discovered that the Covenanters were ready with an
answer that left no room for the play of diplomacy. They
had, in fact, not been idle in the interval. They had
strengthened the Tables, agreed to answer any proclamation
Hamilton might bring by a protestation, if it fell short of
their demands, resolved not to rest satisfied with the mere
suspension of the Service Book and the modification of the
Commission, but to demand the revocation of the Perth
Articles and the convocation of an Assembly or a Parlia
ment, and had even, on the report of an intended invasion by
a fleet and an army, taken the precaution to collect arms in
self-defence. To overreach or overawe men of this stamp
was beyond the wit of the royal Commissioner. When he
talked of the king coming with an army of 40,000 men to
enforce his will, Rothes quietly replied that " the highest of
their desires was to have religion so established as men might
not alter it at their pleasure heirafter, as they had done
heretofore, and to enjoy the libertie of the lawes of the king-
dome, and if either of these was not obtained, they would not
be effrayed with the terror of threatenings." He could not even
venture to proclaim the royal declaration. The Covenanters
not only declared that they would protest, but built a scaffold
opposite the Cross and assembled around it several thousand
strong ready for action. They would not move an inch from
the demands to which they had bound themselves — the
abrogation of the Perth Articles, as well as the Service Book,
and a free Assembly and Parliament. The utmost they
would yield was to offer to disclaim, in the form of an
explanation, that the Covenant was meant as "an unlawful
combination against authority," and to give a positive assur
ance of their loyalty to the king. The Covenant, they
insisted, was neither an illegal nor a rebellious combination.
At the same time courier after courier brought him letters
from Charles insisting on the renunciation of the Covenant,
informing him that he was preparing for war, and bidding
him gain time by protracting the negotiations and dispersing
the Covenanters. " I will rather die than yield to these im
pertinent and damnable demands," wrote he on nth June,

Renewed Protestation. 265
" for it is all one as to yield to be no king in a very short
time." "As concerning the explanation of their damnable
Covenant," he added a fortnight later, " I have no more power
in Scotland than as a Duke of Venice, which I will rather
die than suffer. Yet I commend the giving ear to the
explanation, or anything else, to win time." Hamilton could
only "assure him that the war would be " a difficult work and
bloody," and ask leave to return in order to try to persuade
him to accept the Covenanters' alternative of a Parliament
and an Assembly. Charles complied, but ordered him first to
proclaim his declaration (in a modified form). Hamilton,
who had persuaded the Covenanters to disperse pending his
journey, and had proceeded as far as Seton on his way south,
returned and did as he was commanded (4th July). The
declaration called forth the threatened protest, which was
read by Johnstone. It complained that his majesty had
ignored all their supplications, rebutted once more the
charge of rebellion, and flatly denied the royal assumption
of the right to establish even a modified Court of High
Commission and other innovations without the consent of
Parliament and Assembly.
Hamilton's mission had only aggravated the determina
tion and defiance of the protesters. They now openly pro
claimed their right to hold an Assembly in virtue of a
higher authority than that of an earthly king. " This man
ner of dealing," notes Baillie, " has made us speak out that
which was before but in the mindes of some very few — our
right. from God, which the prince may not in law or reason
take from us, to keep a Generall Assemblie. . . . This is the
highest string yet our necessities has drawn us to strike on."
The spirit of resistance took hold even of the Privy Council.
Lorn and Southesk refused to sign the declaration, and
many of those who had signed in the morning forced
Hamilton at a later sitting to tear the paper containing
their signatures in pieces. If Bishop Guthry may be
credited, the Commissioner himself privately gave the
Covenanters to understand that they had only to persist to
succeed. Charles would fain have retaliated by marching an army
across the Border to put an end to further debate. This

266 Charles ultimately gives way.
was the remedy of Wentworth, who presumed to talk of
treating Scotland like a second Ireland, and some members
of the Committee of the English Privy Council for dealing
with Scottish affairs called for a declaration of war. The
temper of the English people, rasped by ship-money and
Laudian High Churchism, was, , however, not encouraging.
To raise and maintain an army to subdue Scotland would,
therefore, be both an unpopular and a difficult enterprise.
Hamilton was, accordingly, sent back to concede an Assembly
and a Parliament. He was, however, to stipulate that the
bishops should have a seat in the Assembly in virtue of their
office, and that ministers who had been deprived by the
Covenanters should be restored to their parishes, and those
admitted without Episcopal ordination expelled. In place of
the National Covenant, he was to demand subscription to the
Confession of 1567, with additions specially safeguarding
the royal authority as well as the laws and liberties of the
country. He found the Tables as obdurate as ever. They would
not hear of Episcopal members of Assembly, which must
consist solely of deputies elected by the presbyteries. The
lay members of the Tables further insisted, and the clerical
members ultimately agreed, that elders should be elected as
well as ministers. In other words, Charles must return to the
ecclesiastical status quo before 1606, and recognise the legis
lative supremacy of a free representative Assembly. Once
more the Commissioner found himself in a corner, and once
more repaired to London to counsel submission. On the
17th September he came a third time to revoke absolutely
the Service Book, Canons, and High Commission, and sus
pend the Articles of Perth, and to summon an Assembly to
convene at Glasgow on the 21st November and a Parliament
in the following May. Even yet the Covenanters protested.
Charles would not waive subscription to a covenant of his
own, though he substituted that of 1581 for the Confession
of 1567. They preferred their own Covenant, and declined
to recognise one which, while denouncing Popery, ignored
the Perth Articles, Episcopacy, and the Service Book. This
poor manoeuvre to redeem the royal amour propre failed com
pletely. A few thousand signatures, chiefly in Aberdeen,

The Assembly at Glasgow. 267
were all that Hamilton could obtain. The nation at large,
it was evident, was no longer in a mood to take its cue from
the court in these matters.
Of this determination the Glasgow Assembly gave no un
certain testimony. It may be said without exaggeration that
the Scottish people was convened by representative at Glasgow.
Besides the elected deputies of presbyteries, shires, burghs,
universities, the convention was swelled by thousands of all
classes who, in spite of a proclamation forbidding all except
members of Assembly to appear, flocked to support their
representatives by their presence. On the opening and sub
sequent days the cathedral was crammed with such a multi
tude that even the members had to fight every inch of their
way to their seats. " The magistrates with their town guard,"
says Baillie, " the noblemen with the assistance of the gentrie,
whiles (even) the Commissioner in person could not get us
entry to our roomes (seats), use what force, what policie they
could, without such delay of time and thrumbling through as
did grieve and offend us." On a raised chair of state sat the
Commissioner, the members of the Privy Council, including
all the high officials of the Government, ranged at a lower
elevation on either side and in front of him. A small table
denoted the place to be occupied by the moderator or pre
sident, and the clerk. On the floor stood a long table, on
either side of which sat, on rising tiers of benches, the
members — ministers and elders — representing the highest and
the humblest in the land — nobles, gentry, burgesses, clergy,
people, as embodied in the Christian congregation. Rothes,
Montrose, Loudon, Eglinton, Cassilis, Lothian, Wemyss,
Burghley, Yester, Home, Lindesay, Balmerino, and others of
lesser rank, such as the lairds of Keir, Auldbar, Towie, Newton,
Lamington, Douglas of Cavers, were there to champion the
Kirk which some of their ancestors had betrayed. Whether
all were Presbyterian by conviction is a different matter, for
in Scotland, as in other lands, there is too much truth in the
saying that popish land made Protestant landlords, and one
cannot escape the suspicion in regard to some of the Kirk's
defenders that religion was, to some extent, a question of
teinds and rents. There was, at any rate, no alternative for
patriotic Scotsmen but to be Presbyterian as against a king

268 Its Representative Character.
who had been so far led astray by ecclesiastical prejudice and
arbitrary instincts as Charles I. had been in his dealings with
his native land. " Few barons of note," says Baillie, " but
were^ either voters or assessors ; from every burgh the chief
burgess ; from all the sixty-three presbyteries three com
missioners, except a verie few ; from all the four universities
also ; sitting on good commodious roomes (seats) rising up five
or six degrees, going roundabout the long low table. ... At
the end a high roome (bench) prepared chieflie for young
noblemen, with huge numbers of people, ladies, and some
gentlewomen in the vaults (galleries) above." In short the
nation in miniature, in virtue of the representative principle,
which the Covenanters had vindicated despite the Com
missioner's intrigues, and of the eagerness to see and hear
which had defied the royal proclamation, was gathered on
that November forenoon within the walls of the noble edifice
that bore the name of St Mungo or Kentigern, one of the
earliest of Scotland's evangelists. A sermon and a prayer
from Mr John Bell, the oldest minister of the Presbytery of
Glasgow, prefaced the session of what, in view of its results,
must be pronounced one of the most momentous conclaves in
the history of the United Kingdom in these modern centuries.
The Commissioner did not venture to read the speech
which he had ready in his pocket, as Rushworth erroneously
says he did. " His grace did harangue none at all," says
Baillie, who was there, " as we did expect he should." Not that
he was diffident of his oratoric ability. " We found him oft
thereafter as able to have spoken well what he pleased as any
in the House." But the message which he was commissioned
to announce would, he knew, steel against him the heart of
nearly every man present. Charles might sacrifice the Service
Book : he would not surrender the bishops. He might allow
debate ; they must not overstep the limits he had prescribed.
The Assembly, on the other hand, was determined to assert
its independence, as a legislative body, in things spiritual, as
in the days of yore, to arraign and depose the bishops, and
restore the Presbyterian system in its integrity. It was hope
less to expect it to recognise even the limited Episcopacy of
1606. The day not merely of reaction, but of revolution, had
dawned on the land. Nemesis had come upon the subservient

Struggle between Commissioner and Assembly. 269
instruments of an arbitrary government. All the Commissioner
could do was by evasion to put off for a few days the inevi
table breach. Perchance he might manage to divide the
Assembly and prevent at least a minority from going the
length of defying the king. To this end he objected, pro
tested at every step during the following days. It looked as
if he had come there of set purpose to limit the business of
the Assembly to a series of protests and counter-protests. At
all events he left a loophole open at every step for disavowing
anything the Assembly might do.
On the 22nd it proposed the election of a moderator. The
Commissioner called for the examination of members' com
missions as an indispensable preliminary, with the object of
raising the question of the right of elders to sit in an ecclesi
astical assembly. " Here," notes Baillie, " did arise the
teuchest (toughest) dispute we had in all the Assemblie."
Rothes, Loudon, Henderson, and others insisted that the
choice of a moderator was an essential preliminary to all
other business. The Commissioner protested on behalf of the
rights of the bishops, and proposed to read their declinator of
the Assembly's authority. He was answered that nothing
could be read to the Assembly before the election of a
moderator. On insisting, he was interrupted with angry cries
of " No reading," " No reading," from the galleries. After the
uproar had calmed down, he protested anew and demanded
that his assessors of the Privy Council should have the right
to vote. He was told that none had a right to vote there but
those deputed by the Church to do so. Thus the hours
passed on in angry recrimination, " all being wearied," says
Baillie, with some humour, " with the multiplication of pro
testations but the (interim) clerk, who with every one received
a piece of gold." " We were all relieved," he adds, in refer
ence to these tiresome sittings, " of the expense of a dinner ;
ane earlie breakfast put us all off to supper, for commonlie we
satt ane hour with candlelight."
At last a long sitting ended with the choice of Henderson,
" incomparably," as Baillie testifies, " the ablest man of us all,
for all things." Henderson had once been an Episcopalian,
but he had opposed the Perth Articles, and was the first of
his brethren, as well as the foremost in ability, to challenge

270 Shall the Assembly Judge the Bishops ?
the Service Book, and with Rothes, Loudon, and Johnstone
had hitherto borne the brunt of the battle for the Covenant.
With such a man in the moderator's chair, Hamilton's tactics
of evasion and protest must speedily break down. He had a
worthy henchman in Johnstone, whom the Assembly, despite.
more obstruction from its Commissioner, elected as clerk
(23rd). The members' commissions were next examined,
and, with a few exceptions, found in order (24th and 26th
November), further protests from the chair of state notwith
standing. Thus after five days' wrangling, during which the
clerk made money like water, the Assembly was ready to
tackle more serious business. Hamilton tried one more
device to obstruct the rising tide of defiance. On the 27th he
asked the clerk to read the bishops' declinator and a couple
of meagrely signed protests against the membership of lay
elders. On the following day he brought in Dr Balcanqual,
Dean of Durham, and, next to Laud, Charles' most trusted
adviser in Scottish ecclesiastical affairs, to champion Epis
copacy. Balcanqual made not the slightest impression. " In
my judgment," notes Baillie, "he had done better to have
been quiet ; the man is quick and eloquent, but seems not
to be of any profound soliditie." He was elaborately answered
by the moderator, who thereafter posed the critical question,
" Whether the Assembly might judge the bishops, notwith
standing their declinator ? " Hamilton instantly interposed.
With much profession of grief, he announced that he could
not allow the Assembly to trench on this subject, and in
evidence thereof he produced his majesty's ultimatum.
Charles would " discharge " the Service Book, Canons, High
Commission, and Perth Articles, and undertake that hence
forth nothing of that nature should be introduced except in a
legal fashion. He would refrain from exacting any oath from
ministers contrary to that set forth in Acts of Parliament,
would summon a General Assembly as often as necessary for
the maintenance of discipline, and would subject the present
bishops and their successors to its censure. On the other
hand, he required all his subjects to sign the Covenant of
1 58 1, and renewed the oft-made assertion that he had never
intended to innovate in things religious. The assertion was
so transparently false that it could not deceive the most

The Moderator and the Civil Power. 271
credulous. Was, then, the Service Book no innovation ?
Nay, was it not an English innovation ? It was not merely
Popery, but Laudian High Churchism, which in their eyes was
part and parcel of Popery, that the Covenanters objected to,
as Charles knew well enough. In thus obstinately shutting
his eyes to the feelings and views of his Scottish subjects in
this matter, he showed himself incapable of attaining an
honest and satisfactory solution of the problem. The con
cessions he was willing to make may be allowed to have been
very liberal in the circumstances, and the moderator, in reply,
returned the thanks of the Assembly, and acknowledged in a
very liberal degree the royal prerogative "even in Church
matters." " With our hearts doe we acknowledge before God,
and with our mouth doe we desire to testifie to the world how
far we think ourselves obleist (obliged) to our dread sover-
eigne. ... It hath been the glorie of the Reformed Churches,
and we accompt it our glorie after a speciall manner to give
unto kings and Christian magistrates what belongs unto their
places. . . . There is nothing due unto kings and princes in
matters ecclesiasticall which I trust by this Assembly shall be
denied unto our king." It was in the royal power, he con
tinued, to watch over the affairs of the Kirk, to vindicate
religion, to confirm by his royal authority the Kirk's con
stitutions, to correct Kirkmen and compel them to perform
their duties, to convene Assemblies and occupy the chief place
in them. " What is Caesar's, or what is ours," he concluded,
" let it be given to Caesar, but let the God by whom kings
reigne have His own place and prerogative — by whose grace
our king reigneth."
Such large powers ought to have satisfied even Charles I.,
and the Commissioner was fain to confess that the moderator
had spoken as a good Christian and a dutiful subject.
But the Assembly, while ready to interpret Charles'
ecclesiastical prerogative in a very liberal sense, was not
prepared to humour him so far as to spare the bishops. From
the nobles, whose privileges they had invaded, they could
expect no mercy, and the clergy were almost to a man
champions of Presbyterian parity. They stood charged with
various delinquencies at the instance of the Presbytery of
Edinburgh, and the moderator, ignoring their declinator, put

272 The Great Question at Issue.
the question again, whether the Assembly was competent to
judge them ? Once more the Commissioner rose — this time
not merely to repeat the royal inhibition, but to disown in a
long harangue the Assembly itself. There had, he contended,
been undue interference with the election of members on the
part of the Tables. Witness two papers, which he produced,
containing directions to presbyteries how to vote. How, he
asked, could that be a free Assembly which had virtually been
packed with the nominees of the Covenanters? Moreover,
the intrusion of lay elders had no warrant in law, Scripture, or
practice, and their presence consequently invalidated the
Assembly. It was a critical moment. Behind the bishops stood the
king, and on the Commissioner lay the task not merely of
saving them from Nemesis, but of upholding the royal
authority. Charles had deliberately chosen to challenge the
whole nation to forswear its convictions in a matter in which
neither he nor it would compromise. He did so after a long
course of devious and arbitrary conduct had driven the nation
to the brink of revolt, and after concession had come too late
to save the bishops. The excitement was intense, for the
issue was tremendous — tremendous for both sides. A far
graver crisis this than when the English Commons in 1629 in
sisted on their Speaker putting a resolution before adjourning,
in spite of the royal command. On that occasion it was a
question of privilege, with dissolution as the penalty of dis
obedience. At Glasgow it was a question of carrying out a
revolution in the Church which must involve a civil war, if
not a complete revolution in the State. The members of that
Assembly knew that Charles was striving might and main to
get a fleet and army in readiness to crush them and their
Covenant. They knew that in a few months at most they
would be called on to make good their resolution with their
swords. Baillie's letters show clearly that in resolving to tear
up Episcopacy root and branch they were taking their lives in
their hands. The reports of military preparations, which he
records, flew throughout the land, and the reports were, they
knew, but too well founded. The Commissioner was equally
conscious of the gravity of the situation, and tried hard to
argue his opponents into compliance before conjuring the

Argyll Intervenes. 273
inevitable rupture. In the long wrangle which ensued he
strove to narrow the issue to the question whether they would
obey the king or not. There had been much searching of
heart, as Baillie's letters show, over the question of the lawful
ness of resistance, and men like Baillie had been busy reading
the opinions of the Reformers in order to fortify their minds
for the ordeal.
" I stand to the king's prerogative," concluded Hamilton,
after a lengthy altercation, " as supreme judge over all causes,
civill and ecclesiasticall, to whom I think they (the bishops)
may appeale, and not let the causes be reasoned here."
Hereupon Argyll (formerly Lord Lorn), though not a
member, craved liberty, as a Privy Councillor, to dissent
from the course taken by the Commissioner, whose intrigues
he at the same time indirectly reproved. " I was called to this
Assembly by his majesty's command ; but now, being come,
I desire to clear myselfe that my pairt has been fair in every
thing that I know — neither as flatterer of the king's grace,
nor for my own ends. I have not striven to blow the bellows ;
but studied to keepe matters in as soft a temper as I could,
and now I desire to make it known to you that I take you
all for members of a lawful Assemblie and honest countrie-
men." Thus, at the supreme moment, the man who was to
be the virtual King of Scotland for the next dozen years
opportunely emerged on the scene. Though his speech did
not shake the Commissioner's resolution, it contributed to
brace the Assembly to hold its ground. The Covenanters
had gained not only " the far most powerful subject in our
kingdom," as Baillie calls him, but the ablest politician of his
day. Still Rothes made one more appeal to the Commissioner to
forbear. Hamilton was inexorable. " I cannot stay now,"
he curtly retorted. Rothes, therefore, intimated a protest.
" We are most unwilling to present it," said he entreatingly,
" and would rather entreat your grace to propone your scruple
and exceptions against this Assemblie that they may be
cleared. If your grace will not, but will depairt, we must
protest that your grace has depairted without a just reason."
Taking no notice of this final appeal, Hamilton at last uttered
the fatal words. " I make a declaration that nothing done
VOL. III. S

274 Hamilton Withdraws.
heir in this Assemblie shall be of any force to bind any of his
majesty's subjects, and I, in his majesty's name, discharge
this court to sit any longer." As he moved from his seat, the
voice of the clerk was heard reciting the reasons why the
Assembly could not admit his objections, or dissolve at his
command. In particular, they denied that the king or his
Commissioner could arbitrarily dissolve the Assembly, since
his majesty's prerogative in spiritual matters was limited by
the privileges and liberties of the Kirk, which were ratified by
Parliament, and which he had sworn at his coronation neither
to diminish nor infringe. They protested their loyalty, but
they claimed to be the supreme ecclesiastical judicatory of the
land, and declared that they would continue their session till
they had resolved all matters with which they were entitled
to deal. In conclusion, they summoned the prelates and the
Privy Councillors who had misled the king to their detriment
to answer at the bar of the Assembly and the Parliament,
respectively. The silence which fell on the Assembly as Johnstone sat
down was broken by the moderator, who firmly emphasised
their right in the name of God to meet and deliberate there,
in spite of royal inhibitions, and bade them take courage and
be faithful to their charge. Member after member rose to
second the exhortation. Lord Erskine and others in the
gallery craved to be allowed to join the Covenant, and then,
in answer to the moderator's query, the whole Assembly (half
a dozen members excepted) solemnly promised to continue in
session till they had finished the business laid on them.
Finally the Assembly, with only four dissentients, answered
the moderator's question as to its competency to judge the
bishops in a ringing affirmative.
To the protestation Hamilton replied on the morrow with
a proclamation prohibiting the Assembly from further de
liberation on pain of treason, declaring such deliberation null
and void, and commanding the members to disperse within
twenty-four hours. The ubiquitous Johnstone was again on
the scene to repeat at the Market Cross the protest which he
had recited in the cathedral the day before.
It is useless to waste indignation on this rupture, either
for or against the contending parties. It is sufficient to note

The Rupture Inevitable. 275
that it was a foregone conclusion. Hamilton had come there
to obstruct, the Assembly to insist, and the collision followed
as a matter of course. Charles' idea of a free Assembly was
certainly peculiar. It meant no more than an Assembly
which would refrain from doing what he had determined it
should not do. The Assembly, on the other hand, claimed to
represent the nation and to carry out a national policy.
There might be flaws here and there in the elections ; some
overbearing of conscientious scruples where Episcopacy had its
adherents. But the Covenant was undoubtedly a national
movement, the Assembly no mere faction seeking to impose
its will by intrigue and intimidation. The bishops had but
few supporters, and they deserved no support. Episcopacy
had had a fair chance — more than a fair chance — and had
failed to hold its ground. With all the influence of the king
and the Government as well as the powers of the High Com
mission to back it, it had taken no firm hold on clergy or
people, and the conduct of the bishops, especially in these
recent years, had filled the cup of national reaction to over
flowing. Prudence might, therefore, have suggested to
Charles the necessity of yielding to the national will, so un
equivocally expressed in petitions, protests, National Cove
nant. He had, it may be admitted, conceded much, and he
might well think the Covenanters unreasonable and exacting.
They certainly were unreasonably dogmatic, viewed from the
standpoint of a more tolerant age. But Charles was not a
whit less dogmatic in his belief in Episcopacy than these
Covenanters in their belief in Presbytery. He believed, too,
in the divine right of kings as absolutely as the Covenanters
believed in the divine right of Presbytery, and he considered
Episcopacy as an indispensable adjunct of this belief. He
believed, too, in the High Commission ; and those who ad
mire his liberality, as compared with the benighted Cove
nanters, should remember the fact. To us, at least, there
is no preference to be accorded to one side or the other in
the matter of dogmatism. The Presbyterian could not suffer
the Episcopalian, the Episcopalian could not abide the Pres
byterian. Hence the inevitable rupture, as soon as the
Presbyterian felt himself strong enough, as he now was, to
throw down the gauntlet to his opponent.

276 Episcopacy an Impossibility.
But one thing is clear. Charles did both himself and the
Presbyterians an irreparable injury in persisting in regarding
the Covenanters as factious and disloyal because they insisted
on righting their wrongs. The Covenanters were as loyal,
though not so servile as the Episcopalians. They had, too,
their grievances — grievances that were not merely ecclesias
tical, but national, political. Charles set the patriotism as
well as the religious feelings- of his Scottish subjects on edge,
and the bishops had done their best in pandering to a high
handed, unnational policy to incur the odium of this policy.
Episcopacy was, in fact, in the present temper of the nation,
absolutely impossible. Charles had not to deal with a mere
enterprising faction, but with an angry nation, and his grand
error consisted in refusing to see that he must sacrifice the
bishops to the nation. Had he been a statesman, and not
an opinionated visionary on the throne, he would have made
up his mind to give the nation satisfaction in this matter.
He might appeal to conscience, but it was not for the con
science of one man to override that of a whole people.
Scotland, at least, was not the country to stand such experi
ments, and certainly the expedients adopted by Charles'
representative at Glasgow were not fitted to make the experi
ment a success. Hamilton's arguments against the legality
of the Assembly were not only weak, they were frivolous.
To argue that the Assembly was illegal because lay elders
were not entitled to a seat in it, was to invite the retort that
the Assemblies of 1606, 1610, 161 7, in which laymen had
voted in subversion of Presbytery, were equally illegal — nay,
that the Reformation itself was indefensible. In view of the
tactics of both Charles and his father, in carrying out their
ecclesiastical policy, the Commissioner might be thankful if
he was not roundly told that it was not for King Charles or
his representative to speak of underhand dealings.
The immediate sequel may be briefly told. With deter
mined deliberation the Assembly proceeded to settle accounts
with the bishops, who were accused, inter alia, of having
broken the Caveats of 1600. It not only deprived, but ex
communicated the two archbishops and six of their fellow-
prelates. It deposed the remaining four. It abjured Episco
pacy and banned it out of the Kirk, annulled the six

An Ecclesiastical Revolution. 277
previous Assemblies from 1606 onwards, condemned the
Service Book, the Canons, the Five Articles, and the High
Commission, reinstated the victims of the Commission,
re-established the Presbyterian constitution according to
the " Second Book of Discipline," confirmed the Covenant
with suitable additions, and, finally, on the 20th December
supplicated his majesty to be pleased to ratify these Acts in
the Parliament to be convened in the following May. It was
in the circumstances an unconscionable supplication. Charles
was sharpening his sword and vowing vengeance. The sup
pliants knew right well what they had to expect. They had
done the work of the Lord, and they feared not the face of
man. " We have now thrown down the walls of Jericho," said
Henderson in conclusion ; " let him that rebuildeth them
beware of the curse of Hiel, the Bethelite."
SOURCES. — Same as for the preceding chapter, except
Calderwood's History, which finishes at 1625. Additional
— Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vols. vi. and vii.,
edited by Hume Brown ; Letters and Journals of Robert
Baillie, Principal of Glasgow University, edited by D. Laing
for the Bannatyne Club, vol. i. (1637-41); Rothes, A Relation
of Proceedings Concerning the Affairs of the Kirk of Scot
land (August 1637-July 1638), presented to the Bannatyne
Club by Jas. Nairne. These two works are invaluable con
tributions from the Presbyterian point of view. Gordon,
History of Scots Affairs, 1637-41 (Spalding Club). Gordon's
History, like Spalding's History of the Troubles, views events
from the Episcopalian standpoint. Rushworth, vol. iii. ;
Hamilton Papers, edited by Gardiner for the Camden Society
(1880); A Large Declaration Concerning the Late Tumults
in Scotland, by the King, written under Charles' direction
by Dr Balcanqual, and giving Charles' view of the conflict.
The Presbyterians strongly rebutted many of its assertions as
untrue and calumnious, and it requires to be checked by the
accounts of the opposite side. Records of the Kirk of Scotland,
edited by Peterkin (1838), containing, besides the Acts of the
Glasgow Assembly, a valuable contemporary account of the
debates. Burnet, Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton (1673),
edition of 1852, containing selections from Hamilton's letters,

278 Sources of Chapter XII.
but written in an extremely partisan spirit. Memoirs of
Bishop Guthry (Bishop of Dunkeld under Charles IL), 2nd
edition (1748) ; Scotch Troubles (1637-41); Original Papers
from Hamilton Archives, State Paper Office, &c, in Hard-
wicke State Papers (1778) ; Clarendon, History of the
Rebellion, vol. i. ; Sprott, Scottish Liturgies in the Reign of
James VI. ; Aiton, Life and Times of Alex. Henderson
(1836); Mark Napier, Life and Times of Montrose (1840)
(exceedingly one-sided) ; Willock, The Great Marquess
(Argyll) (1903), written at times in too apologetic a tone;
Gardiner, History of England, viii. and ix. ; Masson,
Drummond of Hawthornden (1873).

CHAPTER XIII.
War between Charles and the Scots (1639- 1640).
Charles took no notice of the Assembly's supplication, and
the Covenanters determined to appeal from the king to the
English peoplei( 14th February 1639). They rebutted as "a
most untrue and damnable aspersion " the assertion that they
were seeking, under cloak of religion, to change the form of
civil government and invade England. They professed the
most brotherly sentiments towards their English fellow-
subjects, and they implied that Charles was being misled by
Laud and his abettors to subvert by his innovations the
Protestantism of England as well as Scotland. Finally,
they appealed with confidence to the English sense of jus
tice and fair play. " We do assure ourselves that if the
States of the Parliament of England were convened, and the
whole progress of this business faithfully represented unto
them, they would, without doubt, be so far from censuring or
condemning what we do that they would be moved to become
petitioners to his sacred majesty on our behalf, and approve
of the equity and loyalty of all our proceedings in this
cause." Charles was maddened by this exposure at the bar of
English public opinion, and replied by a proclamation on the
27th February, denouncing the Covenanters as rebels and
traitors. The whole thing was the work of " unquiet spirits,"
" men of broken fortunes," " desperate hypocrites," who only
aimed at their own advantage. For him the question was
no longer " whether a Service Book is to be received or not,
nor whether Episcopal government shall be continued or
Presbyterial admitted ; but whether we are their king or
not?" If Charles had inserted a qualifying adjective he
would have stated the question aright. The question was not,

280 Charles' Plan of Campaign.
whether he should be king or not ; but whether he should
be absolute king or not. He followed up this angry missive
by the publication of " A Large Declaration concerning the
late Tumults in Scotland," in' which Dr Balcanqual gave, in
430 folio pages, the royal version of the quarrel of the previous
two years.
Charles now meant war in earnest. The summons had,
in fact, already gone forth for an army to assemble on the
northern Border, under the Earls of Arundel and Holland, in
the spring. Want of funds forced him to reduce the estimate
of 30,000 to about 12,000. Five thousand more were to
take ship with Hamilton for Aberdeen, the stronghold of
Episcopacy, join with Huntly's clansmen, and march on
Edinburgh, crushing the Covenanters en route. Antrim was
to land in Argyleshire with some thousands of Irishmen, and
blow the feud between Campbells and MacDonalds into
flame ; Wentworth at Dumbarton with more Irishmen. On
the east coast, Pennington's fleet would bar the ingress of
ammunition and supplies from Holland and ruin the trade
of Fife and the Lothians. Nay, veterans were to be hired
from the Spanish Netherlands in order to steady the English
levies. Thus from the south, west, north, and east the
Covenanters would be hemmed in and slaughtered, or driven
to sue for mercy.
The snare was skilfully laid. Charles forgot that it might
riot please the Covenanters to step into it. Every Covenant
ing pulpit sounded the alarm throughout the land. " The
pulpits," said Burnet, " did ring with the ruin of religion and
liberties ; and that all might look for Popery and bondage,
if they did not now quit themselves like men." The
Covenanters had also elaborated their plan of campaign, and
they did not, like Charles, ruin it from the outset by select
ing an incapable generalissimo like Arundel. In General
Alexander Leslie they chose a man whose ability had won
him the rank of field-marshal in the Swedish army in
Germany. They formed a Committee of War in every
county to raise men and money, and within a few weeks
Leslie could count on 30,000 men, many of them veterans
who had served in the German war, for the defence of the
Covenant. They brought large supplies of arms and

Energetic Measures of the Covenanters. 281
ammunition from Holland, Sweden, and Germany. They
had, however, no intention of using their strength against
England. Their object was, as they stated in letters to the
mayors of Berwick and Carlisle, to defend religion and
liberties against their aggressor.
Nor did they draw the sword in a merely captious, rebel
lious spirit, though their royalist maligners, they complained,
could not find words hard enough to stigmatise their action.
They were loth to fight against their king, they protested in
a representative letter to the Earl of Newcastle, if means
could otherwise be found of safeguarding the rights of
Scotland. Charles expected much of Traquair, Roxburgh, Douglas
in the south, Huntly in the north. Of these, Huntly alone
attempted anything serious. Traquair surrendered at Dal
keith without a blow. Roxburgh and Douglas slunk over
the Border. Montrose hurried to Aberdeen, secured Huntly,
and brought him a prisoner to Edinburgh. Worse still, the
Covenanters managed to seize Edinburgh and Dumbarton
Castles. Already, before Charles had .fired a shot, two-thirds
of his plan of campaign had been blown into the air.
There would be no landing at Dumbarton and Aberdeen,
no royalist concentration from the west and the north to
threaten the rear of Leslie's army, while Charles crossed the
Border to press it in front. Instead of sailing to Aberdeen,
Hamilton was forced to drop anchor in front of Leith. Once
more he had only doleful messages to send. Leith was so
strongly fortified, and so numerously held, that he could not
risk an attack. Nay, such was the spirit of determination
that the Covenant had aroused, that his own mother rode in
and swore to shoot him with her own hand, if he attempted
to land. Against this exalted spirit, the policy of "bluff"
which he adopted was not of the slightest avail. The
magistrates of Edinburgh refused to publish his proclama
tions commanding the submission of the lieges, in spite of
the threatening roar of his cannon. " Your majesty's affaires
are in ane desperate condition," he wrote. In proof thereof,
he enlarged on the numbers, organisation, and determination
of the Covenanters, whilst his own men, he was fain to con
fess, could not even handle, let alone discharge their muskets.

282 The Covenanters on Duns Law.
His only expedient was to advise the king "to think of
some way of patching it up." A week later he was able to
report that his men had at least got the length of learning
to handle their weapons, but _ he was in danger of starvation
if victuals were not immediately forthcoming. After the lapse
of another week, he tells the king that the Covenanters were
determined to fight him on the Border, and advises him to
shun a battle and try negotiation. The news of a successful
skirmish between a party of the loyalist Gordons and the
local Covenanters at Turriff — the Trot of Turriff — brought a
spurt of courage, and he was ready on the strength of it to
carry out the initial plan of a landing at Aberdeen. The
engagement is noteworthy as the first exploit of a war
that was to lengthen into many campaigns, and to involve
England as well as Scotland in a terrible strife. It did not
in the slightest retrieve Hamilton's desperate position, for
Montrose was quickly on the scene, recaptured Aberdeen
from the Gordons, and imposed the yoke of the Covenant
on it anew. Nor had Charles himself, who had advanced to
the Birks, near Berwick, in the end of May, been able to affect
anything likely to retrieve it in the Border region. His army
was pitiable both in numbers and quality — a sure prey for the
veterans who in the beginning of June encamped on Duns
Law to fight under Leslie " for Christ's crown and Covenant."
He was, to quote Clarendon, inclined " to regard the pomp of
his preparations more than their strength." He looked at the
tents of the Covenanting host on the hillside through a
telescope. At first he thought their numbers not very for
midable. But their numbers grew, and what was more
important than mere numbers, discipline and enthusiasm
reigned in their camp, where " that old, little, crooked soldier "
held absolute sway over even the proudest nobles of the
land. " Leslie," wrote Sir Edmund Verney, " has now the
title of soverain amongst them, and the best lord amongst
them sits at a great distance below him." Two days later,
after Holland's reconnaisance towards Kelso, which ended in
disgraceful panic, Charles was convinced that there was no
alternative but to negotiate or retreat. He chose to negotiate,
with a mental reservation suggested by Hamilton in favour of
Episcopacy, and the Covenanters saved his dignity so far as to

A Futile Pacification. 283
send the Earl of Dunfermline with a petition to this effect.
In the negotiations which followed, their commissioners, who
included Rothes, Loudon, Dunfermline, Henderson, John
stone, asked for the ratification of the Acts of the Glasgow
Assembly. Charles refused, but he offered to confirm the
declaration of his Commissioner at Glasgow anent the
Service Book, &c, and to ratify in Parliament whatever a
new Assembly should decree. With this concession the com
missioners were fain to be content. They further agreed to
disband their army, cancel the Tables, and restore the royal
fortresses in return for the withdrawal of the king's forces by
land and sea (Treaty of Berwick, 18th June 1639).
The treaty did not restore cordial relations between king
and people. Charles was loth to sacrifice the bishops, and in
the proclamation summoning the Assembly he directed them
to appear as members. Once more the proclamation was
answered by a protestation, and high words passed between
the king and Rothes at an interview at Berwick on 17th July.
The Covenanters on their side did not straightway dissolve
the Tables or disband their whole army, and maintained the
fortifications of Leith intact. The Pacification of Berwick
was, in fact, only skin deep, and though Traquair, who took
Hamilton's place as Commissioner, allowed the Assembly
that convened in August to abolish Episcopacy and all its
concomitants as " unlawful," and renew and even make com
pulsory the Covenant, with the addition of a loyal explana
tion, Charles was none too pleased with his compliance, and
was secretly bent on undoing it at the first opportunity.
This was amply apparent in the obstructive tactics which
Traquair, by his directions, adopted in the Parliament which
met under his presidency on the last day of August. Parlia
ment was in as revolutionary a mood as the Assembly.
Under the leadership of Argyll, it not only demanded the
abolition of Episcopacy, as decreed by the Assembly, but
claimed, in the name of the liberty of Parliament, the right of
each estate to elect its representative members to the Lords
of the Articles. In other words, the members for shires and
burghs should have their due share in the deliberations of a
body which monopolised the deliberative rights of Parliament
and whose members had hitherto been nominated by the

284 Friction with Scottish Parliament.
crown, the nobility, and the bishops. Furthermore, the
appointment of governors of fortresses should henceforth be
subject to the approval of the Estates. Charles must not
only sacrifice the bishops ; he must unequivocally submit to
the limitation of his undoubted prerogative, even in temporal
matters, by Parliament.
To save himself from a revolution in the State as well as
the Church, he ordered Traquair to prorogue the rebellious
Estates. The Estates, on the other hand, claimed the right
to prorogue themselves, and protested that the Commissioner's
conduct was not only a violation of the constitution, but a
breach of the agreement at Berwick. They sent Loudon and
Dunfermline to present their grievances to the king. Charles
refused to see them, and it was not till the beginning of
March 1640 that, in response to a second petition from Edin
burgh, he allowed them to state their case in the presence of
a committee of the English Privy Council. Loudon, after
stoutly protesting against the assumption of an English com
mittee to sit in judgment on the Scottish Parliament, con
tended that the proceedings of both Parliament and Assembly
had been in accord with the Pacification of Berwick, and
asked the king to ratify them. Charles ultimately retorted
in a lengthy declaration that the Covenanters, not he, had
broken the Pacification, insisted strenuously on his preroga
tive, and inveighed against the Acts of the Covenanters both
within and without Parliament as seditious. He made use of
a letter from the Covenanting leaders to the French king,
addressed " au roi," and asking his assistance, as one more in
contestable proof that the Scots had broken faith with him,
and were determined to reduce his authority to a shadow.
Nevertheless, if they would profess penitence and crave
pardon for the past, he would deal with them as a just and
religious prince. If not, he would once more unsheathe the
sword to compel their obedience. As an earnest of his
determination no longer to be trifled with, he sent Lord
Loudon to the Tower, and but for the entreaties of the
Marquess of Hamilton, would summarily have sent him to
the block, as one of the signatories of the letter to the French
king. Charles was naturally indignant that the Covenanters

Justification of the Tactics of Scots. 285
should not only arraign him before his English subjects, but
invite the interference of Louis XIII. The letter had, how
ever, never been sent, but even if the Scots had gone the
length of despatching the epistle to Louis, Charles might
have chastened his indignation by the reflection that he had
not only received letters from Louis' Huguenot subjects, but
had actually, at their request, intervened by force of arms on
their behalf. Moreover, the letter had been written when the
Scottish people were exposed to the invasion of an English
army and fleet directed by the King of Scotland ! If Charles,
as King of Scotland, might make use of an English force to
reduce his rebellious kingdom, why should not the Scottish
people in self-defence seek to renew the old Franco-Scottish
League ? An English army, though led by a Scottish king,
had no more business in Scotland than a French one,
especially as the Covenanters disclaimed any hostility to
England. Their quarrel was with the King of Scotland, not
with the King of England, and in matters of internal policy,
Scotland was absolutely independent of England. Charles
might not think so, might continue to offend Scottish feeling
by governing it largely through an English Council, of which
Wentworth was the leading spirit. So much the worse for
Charles. The fact that he not only rejected the protest ot
the Scottish Parliament and answered it by the threat of
renewed war, but did so by the advice of a committee of
which the supercilious Wentworth was the soul, made the
renewed rupture only more certain. If the Covenanters
could have got a glimpse of Wentworth's letters to his
master, in which he presumed to treat Scotland as a second
Ireland, they would have derived very strong arguments for
their insistence on the strongest possible guarantees of their
rights and liberties. A military despotism was Wentworth's
answer to the appeal to these rights and liberties. In view of
such a contingency, they had in fact some weeks previously
done what they had hesitated to do before. They not only
drew up, but despatched a second letter asking for Louis'
mediation. Charles, on his side, was forced to do what only
absolute necessity wrung from him. He took Wentworth's
advice, and summoned the English Parliament with a view to
a second campaign against Scotland.

286 The Short Parliament.
What is known as the Short Parliament accordingly met
at Westminster on the 13th April 1640, The Lord Keeper
Finch expatiated at Charles' command on the treason of the
rebellious Scots, who had presumed to address themselves to
a foreign power. In proof thereof he produced and read
their letter to Louis XIII. In order to forestall these ne
farious designs, it was absolutely indispensable to give pre
cedence to supply before grievances. The Commons were by
no means so nervous as the Lord Keeper, and could not see,
as Finch pretended to see, in the superscription of the terrible
epistle " au roi " a deliberate intention to substitute Louis for
Charles as King of Scotland. They simply ignored the
letter, and took up the accumulated grievances of eleven
years of arbitrary government, as contained in petitions from
a number of counties. The lesson of the petitions was power
fully enforced by Pym, and the hope of obtaining an immediate
grant vanished. In spite of repeated appeals from Charles to
hasten supply, coupled with the offer to surrender ship-money,
they continued to amass and discuss abuses, relative to
religion, property, and the rights of Parliament. Charles
tried the effect of an appeal to the Lords. The Lords agreed
that supply should have precedence of grievances, and
exhorted the Commons to do likewise. Neither this exhorta
tion, nor the news that blood had already been shed at Edin
burgh, in a skirmish between the garrison and the citizens,
availed to shake their resolution. They proposed to draw up
a petition asking him to be reconciled to the Scots. To pre
vent this, Charles on the 5 th May abruptly pronounced
sentence of dissolution.
He had recourse once more to ship-money and loans. He
was met not only with sullen refusals, but with active resist
ance in many parts of the country. London would not hear
of a forced loan of £200,000 ; ship-money came in only in
driblets, in spite of prosecutions and imprisonments ; coat and
conduct money was grudgingly given, or not at all ; many of
the levies of the counties mutinied and deserted ; a number
of the counties declined to send their full contingents. People
and king were plainly at cross purposes, and even the cry of
a Scottish " invasion " failed to rouse any patriotic response.
The anger and disappointment at the dissolution of Parlia-

Defiant Measures of the Scots. 287
ment, without redress of grievances, were so intense that the
people in general was resolved that Charles should flounder
out of the quagmire in which he had landed himself as best
he might. From all quarters came the dismal news that the
people would, for the most part, neither pay nor arm. " The
money I have received," wrote the Sheriff of Hertford to
Nicholas on 30th May, " is so invaluable a sum that I have
forborne as yet to pay it, and am heartily sorry that I cannot
better advance his majesty's service." " The city of London,
Kent, Surrey, Essex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and
Bedfordshire," wrote Northumberland to Conway on the
13th June, "are so damnably restive that I doubt we shall not
get near our numbers of men from these places." These are
but two samples of many communications that might be ,
quoted from the State Papers of the period.
Charles would assuredly need more than he could press
out of an unwilling people by arbitrary means, if the news
which ere long came from Scotland proved true, and if he was
to remain king on his own terms north of the Tweed. The
Scottish Parliament, such was the unwelcome news, had met
at Edinburgh without asking the royal permission, or troubling
itself about the absence of the royal Commissioner, and, with
Lord Burghley as its elected president, and Argyll, Rothes,
Johnstone as leaders, had ratified the Acts of the Assembly,
deprived the bishops of their seats, decreed triennial Parlia
ments and free discussion of all measures presented by the
Lords of the Articles, directed that each Estate should choose
its own members of this committee, appointed a commission
of the Estates to conduct the administration, and finally pro
rogued itself to the following November. In little more than
a week it had operated a constitutional revolution, "for in
effect," to quote Sir James Balfour, " it overturned not onlie
the ancient State Government, but fettered monarchie with
chains, and set new limits and marks to the same, beyond
which it was not legally to proceed."
From deliberation the Scots proceeded to deeds. While
Argyll and General Monro were commissioned to overawe
the royalist north (Argyll taking the opportunity of settling
accounts with his personal enemies, Athole and Airlie, with
no credit to the Covenanting cause), Leslie was busy muster-

288 Scottish Invasion of England.
ing his well-equipped army of 25,000 men once more near
Duns Law, and on the 20th the covenanting host, with
Montrose in the van, crossed the Tweed at Coldstream.
Manifestoes had preceded it protesting that the aim of the
invaders was not conquest, but redress of grievances, which
Parliament had failed to obtain, and the punishment of evil
counsellors like Laud and Wentworth. It would not plunder
or exercise force against the people of England ; it would pay
for everything it needed. " We are constrained at this time to
come into England," declared its leaders in " The Information
from the Scottish Nation to all the true English," " not to make
warre, but for seeking our relief and preservation. Duetie
obligeth us to love England as ourselves ; your grievances are
ours ; the preservation or ruine of religion and liberties is
common to both nations ; we must stand or fall together. . . .
We are brethren : your worthy predecessors, at the time of the
Reformation, vouchsafed us their help and assistance. We
have for many years lived in love ; we have common desires
of the purity of religion and quietness of both kingdomes ;
our hopes are to see better days in this island."
On this mission it continued to tramp southwards, while
Charles and Wentworth, now Earl of Strafford and com
mander-in-chief, moved northwards to York, with a force half
the size of the invading army, to reinforce that of Conway at
Newcastle. The lack of confidence and initiative in the royal
army was complete, and Conway's lieutenant-general in the
command of the army of the north was fain to confess that
England virtually lay at the mercy of the Scots. " It were
good we made peace," wrote Conyers to his superior officer,
" for we are not overfit to make war." Besides, Leslie was too
quick for the realisation of the combinations of Charles and
his faint-hearted generals. By the 28th August he had
reached the ford of Newburn on the Tyne, four miles west of
Newcastle, to find Conway with about half his force occupying
a couple of earthworks on the southern bank and prepared to
dispute his passage. A few shots from the Scottish cannon
cleared these works of their defenders ; a cavalry charge,
which followed the fording of the river, sent the English horse
fleeing to Durham and the English infantry pell-mell back to
Newcastle. When the Scottish advance guard reached New-

Charles Negotiates and Summons Parliament. 289
castle next day, Conway had withdrawn to Darlington, and
the object of the campaign was practically attained. From
the Tweed to the Tees the country was in the hands of the
Scots, and, worst of all, they were not unwelcome visitors to
the majority of the people. " I am persuaded," wrote Sir
Edward Osborne on the 14th August to Conway, " if Hannibal
were at our gates, some had rather open them than keep him
out." From London, too, came a petition signed by twelve
peers — not against the Scots, but for the summoning of a new
Parliament, the redress of .the grievances which it enumerated,
the punishment of evil counsellors, and the conclusion of
peace. It was presently backed by another from the city of
London, couched in even stronger terms. In Scotland, Edin
burgh and Dumbarton had fallen into the hands of the
Covenanters. One answer only was possible, and from
Charles that answer was at last wrung. Parliament should be
summoned once more. This answer he ruefully gave to the
great Council which he had summoned to York, but which had
proved powerless to cope with the situation (24th September).
In the meantime commissioners met at Ripon to settle pro
visional terms with the Scots, and ultimately agreed that the
Scottish army should remain for two months in possession of
Northumberland and Durham and receive for its maintenance
a contribution of £25,000 a month, pending the completion
of the negotiation at London (Treaty of Ripon, October 1640).
Charles had applied to Scotland the high-handed policy in
Church and State which seemed to have succeeded in England,
and he had evoked a whirlwind of resistance which had proved
too strong for either his diplomacy or his arms to quell. James
had been aggressive enough in his ecclesiastical policy, but he
had at least made a show of respecting constitutional forms,
had sought the nominal sanction of Parliament and Assembly
at every step. Moreover, he had taken warning from the
formidable opposition in the Parliament of 162 1, and had
refrained from aggravating the rising reaction into revolution.
He knew " the stomach of that people," and kept the dicta
torial, meddlesome Laud at arm's length. As it was, he left
the country seething with ecclesiastical rancour and strife, and
the outlook was by no means reassuring for the stability of the
Episcopal system.
VOL. III. T

290 Significance of Scottish Attitude.
The opposition of 1621 reappeared in the Parliament of
1633, and the Act of Revocation had only made it more
formidable in the interval. Charles mistook it for a mere
faction, arid imagined that he had struck terror into it by the
prosecution of Balmerino. The smallness of his majority in
the Parliament of 1633, in spite of his personal efforts to
influence votes, might have opened his eyes to the danger of
such an assumption. He continued, nevertheless, to act on
this assumption until it became patent even to himself that
he had not a faction, but a nation to deal with. There was
no blinking the fact at last — the Covenanters were substanti
ally the Scottish people. Charles had succeeded in rousing
national feeling in Scotland as it had not been roused since
the days of Bannockburn. To represent the National Cove
nant as the mere product of a few malcontent nobles is to
misread the signs of the times. It would be nearer the truth
to say that Charles and Laud produced the National Cove
nant. They made of the ecclesiastical a national question.
The Covenanters might band themselves together for a
religious purpose. They might fight for " Christ's Crown and
Covenant." They were none the less fighting for what their
fathers had fought at Bannockburn — for the right to be an
independent people. Nay, the issue was wider even than
this. It was not merely a national as well as an ecclesiastical
question. It became a constitutional one. The Covenanters
petitioned and protested on behalf of law and liberty in the
State as well as the Kirk. They challenged the abuse of
arbitrary government all along the line. They opened afresh
on Scottish soil the constitutional conflict which Charles
believed he had settled to his own satisfaction south of the
Tweed. The Scottish Parliament, in fact, took up the quarrel
which the English Commons had been deprived the oppor
tunity of continuing. It invoked the liberty of Parliament.
It claimed the right to limit the prerogative, as applied to
temporal as well as ecclesiastical affairs. It inveighed against
the doings of the royal ministers, and demanded their punish
ment. It practically took the government of the country out
of the king's hands and invested it in a committee of the
Estates. In so doing it only interpreted the dominant public
opinion of the hour. Most significant of all, the nation at its

Its Justification. 291
summons did not hesitate to carry its defiance to the length
of armed resistance. And twice in succession Charles was
forced to own himself beaten, and yield to its demands,
whether ecclesiastical or political. In two short campaigns
Scotland had taught him what all the eloquence of an Eliot,
all the erudition of a Coke had failed to do in England,
that the national and not the royal will was supreme in these
matters. In the eyes of Royalist writers, Scotland, in so doing, was
guilty of heinous disloyalty and presumption. Despite these
Royalist writers, it must be evident to every impartial mind
that Scotland had taught the autocratic Charles Stuart and
his meddlesome English advisers throughout this business a
very salutary lesson. As King of England, he might venture
to dictate to the English nation in matters ecclesiastical.
He was supreme governor of the English Church, and he
could order his bishops to ,do what seemed to him good to
the glory of God and, the advantage of His supreme repre
sentative in the realm. As King of Scotland, he might
appeal to the Act of a subservient Parliament to justify his
inherited claim to the same attribute. But even this sub
servient Parliament had not gone the length of abolishing the
Assembly as a recognised legislative body in things ecclesias
tical, and whatever the formal extent of his prerogative, he
had solemnly undertaken to preserve the liberties of the Kirk.
The Kirk had not humoured James so far as to dispense with
its right to be consulted by both bishops and king in General
Assembly. James had recognised the fact; his son had
tacitly ignored it, and he had been drastically reminded that
he had pushed his arbitrary experiments beyond the verge of
endurance. Scotland had respectfully, but firmly told him
that it would not allow him or his English advisers to dictate
to it in matters of conscience, and its blood once up, it had
defied him sword in hand rather than submit. And once on
the war-path, it was determined to reap the full advantage of
its success, and ensure that neither in Church nor in State
should there be a repetition of these arbitrary tactics. A
section of the Covenanters of the type of a Montrose, actuated
partly by jealousy of other leaders, might hesitate to go
all the length of their principles, and beat a retreat. The

292 The Covenanters Represent a Great Cause.
large majority that followed Argyll insisted on nothing less
than the reduction of the Stuart kingship within strictly
constitutional limits, and even on the imposition of new
limits on the royal authority. Their doing so was only
natural in the circumstances. Indeed, from the practical
point of view, they would have been fools if they had not
taken all the advantage they could to secure what they deemed
the interest of their country. Argyll might possibly be
scheming to serve his own interests at the same time.
Montrose by contrast might be an idealist, though there is
reason to believe that he was not above personal considera
tions, whether as Covenanter or anti-Covenanter. The same
might be said of others of the Scottish nobility, alike of those
who drew the sword for or against Charles. But there was
far more in this movement than personal considerations, and
he must be blind indeed who does not see in it an uprising,
both on religious and political grounds, against the system
that Charles represented in England, and would fain have
enforced in Scotland.
And herein, on a broad survey of its bearings, lies its
perennial significance. As an ecclesiastical quarrel, it may
fail to rouse enthusiasm in these enlightened days ; it cer
tainly does not particularly interest us. With the intolerance
of the Covenanters we have not the slightest sympathy,
though we should try to bear in mind that we cannot expect
from these men more than the age warrants us to expect.
But, with all their narrow dogmatism, they represented a
great cause. Let us not forget that in nearly every country
of Europe the trend was towards the establishment of
absolutist principles on the ruins of inherited law and liberty.
In France and Spain, in the Italian and German States,
the would-be absolute potentate was busy repressing every
right that stood in the way of autocratic government. In
England even, this would-be absolute potentate had appar
ently succeeded in blotting Parliament out of the constitu
tion, and had raised armies and collected fleets as if the
House of Commons had ceased to wield the power of the
purse. It was reserved for stout little Scotland to play
the part of David against the pretentious Goliath of
absolutism. The triumph of this plucky little David was

A Knock-down Blow to Absolutism. 293
the first real check in these modern times to absolutism
since the Dutch had thrown defiance in the teeth of
Philip II. In the one case, as in the other, we see a small
folk, reared on the strong meat of Calvinism, risking destruc
tion rather than yield to the dictation of a ruler who, at the
same time, was the sovereign of another and a more power
ful nation, and who could command the resources of the
stronger nation in the attempt to enforce his will on the
weaker. In the one case, as in the other, the failure of
the attempt was complete. In Scotland in the first half
of the seventeenth century, as in Holland in the second half
of the sixteenth, absolutism received a knock-down blow.
And the effects of the blow were not confined to Scotland ;
they were potently felt in England itself. The constitutional
effects of the Dutch revolution, on the other hand, were
limited to Holland. Philip remained as absolute in Spain
as ever. Not so in the case of the Scottish revolution.
Charles' failure to play the autocrat in Scotland involved
his ultimate failure in England. The Scottish revolution
is the prelude to the English revolution. The Scots did
not exactly import the revolutionary spirit into England ;
the elements of revolution were there in plenty already.
But they hastened the rupture between Charles arid his
English subjects. They forced him to summon Parliament
to deal with a situation which had passed beyond his con
trol, and their example fired England with the determina
tion to do likewise — to strike at the autocratic government
of which Englishmen as well as Scotsmen had been the
victims. The Puritans, whose loyalty Charles and Laud had
done so much to alienate during the previous decade, wel
comed the invaders, in fact, as allies in a common cause. In
their manifestoes to " Their Brethren of England," the Scots
emphasised the fact of this community of interest between
the two nations. Such was their confidence in the sympathy
of their English fellow-subjects, that they appealed for the
justification of their cause to the English Parliament. Nor
was their confidence without substantial ground in the secret
communications which had passed between them and the
Puritan leaders before they set foot across the Border. They
were assured of, at least, the connivance of these leaders.

294 Sources of Chapter XIII.
The letter which Lord Savile wrote in the names of his
fellow-malcontents turned out, indeed, to be a forgery. Savile
had no warrant thus to engage Bedford, Essex, Brooke, War
wick, Saye, Mandeville to active co-operation, and, on his
own subsequent confession, counterfeited their signatures to
a declaration to this effect. But if they were not prepared
to go the length of rebellion, they had undertaken, in a letter
of whose genuineness there is no reason to doubt, to support
their cause in " a free Parliament." The success of the invaders
rendered this support rather gratuitous. But it made the
summoning of a free Parliament in England an absolute
necessity. In bringing matters to this pass, the Scots had
not only achieved one revolution ; they had begun another.
SOURCES. — Same, for the most part, as for the preced
ing chapter, with the addition of Lords' and Commons'
Journals, and Parliamentary History, for the Short Parlia
ment ; State Papers, 1639-40, edited by W. D. Hamilton ;
Diary of Johnstone of Warriston (1639), edited for Scottish
History Society by G. M. Paul (1896); The Verney Papers,
edited by Bruce for the Camden Society (1883); Notes of
the Treaty at Ripon, taken by Sir John Borough (Clerk of
the Commissioners), edited by Bruce for the Camden Society
(1869) ; Oldmixon, History of England, gives the communica
tion between the English malcontents and the Scots, which
Dr Gardiner, differing from his predecessors, accepts as
genuine. Mandeville's account of Savile's forgery and the
recriminations to which it led with the Scots is given in
Nalson's Impartial Collection, vol. ii., 427-429. I have also
consulted No. 15,567 Add. MSS., British Museum, which
contains a full account of the negotiations with the Scots
that resulted in the Treaty of Ripon, and also the confession
of Savile's treachery. I am indebted to my friend and
former student, Miss E. Steele Hutton, M.A., for copying this
MS. for me.

CHAPTER XIV.
The Long Parliament — Attack on Abuses and
Impeachment of Strafford (1640-1641).
" I AM resolved to put myself freely and clearly on the love
and affection of my English subjects." Such were the words
with which Charles, on the 3rd November 1640, opened the
memorable assembly at Westminster, known as the Long
Parliament. "Very pleasing to them all was that gracious
expression," notes the Parliament's secretary and historian,
Th. May. The success of the Scots left him, in truth, no
other alternative.
It had been a rude prompting that forced him virtually
to disown his policy of dispensing with Parliament in the
face of the assembled representatives of the nation. The
announcement was no doubt "very pleasing" to his hearers,
but it is permissible to doubt whether, in this matter, Charles
was a sincere penitent, whether, in fact, he felt any penitence
at all. The thought uppermost in his mind was of "the
rebel" Scots, and the chief business of Parliament was
evidently " the chasing out of these rebels." Charles, indeed,
mentioned grievances and promised his hearty concurrence
in their removal. His chief anxiety was that Parliament
should help him out of the quagmire in which he was
floundering. The Lord Keeper strove, in a laboured speech,
to emphasise the fact. He had much to say of the sins of
the rebellious Scots and of the superlative virtues of his
excellent majesty. He did not even mention the grievances
of his majesty's English subjects. Parliament was, apparently,
merely a second French States General to be summoned to
the rescue when the king had governed the country into
the abyss. The business of this Parliament more particularly
was to side with the king against the Scots and get them,
by treaty or otherwise, forthwith beyond the Border.

296 The Long Parliament and the Scots.
Charles speedily discovered that to the Parliament the
Scots were not rebels, but allies in a common cause. To
the people at large, they were, as Conyers confessed to
Conway, "esteemed friends." He was fain, therefore, to
come down to the Lords two days later and substitute
" my subjects of Scotland " for the opprobrious term which
had given offence to the Parliament as well as the Scots.
Parliament was in truth in no hurry to move "the rebels"
across the Border. " The rebels " were master of the situa
tion, and their presence would enable it to dictate terms
to the king. The grievances of Englishmen would be the
sooner redressed the longer the Scots remained on the Tyne
and the Tees. " Far better it were," said Sir Edward Hales,
"the Scots come unto us than the devil should raise his
arms to overthrow us in both Church and commonwealth."
Once more, therefore, as so often before, grievances must
be considered before supply could be granted even to pay
off the Scots. Of these grievances there was a positive
deluge. For several days petitions rained on the House
of Commons, petitions from individuals — the victims of High
Commission and Star Chamber tyranny — from counties, from
Ireland. A veritable storm of parchment rolls burst upon
the House as member after member, Mr Cappel, representing
Hertford county, in the van, rose to present the complaints
of his constituents. Many of the bearers of these petitions
were by no means new to the work, and the leaders of the
Petition of Right Parliament — Pym, Rudyard, Seymour,
Holies, Strode, Hampden — were there to champion law,
liberty, religion, property once more. Pym, among others,
thundered against the Government (7th November). He
spared Charles ; he presented a terrible indictment against
his ministers. " No imputation is laid upon the king for
any irregular actions, but upon them that he entrusted."
What these "irregular actions" were he showed by a
searching review of the abuses of the past eleven years
of autocratic rule. The privileges of Parliament had been
" broken " by the restraint of free debate, the imprisonment
and unfair trial of members, arbitrary dissolution ; religion
endangered by the suspension of the recusancy laws, and the
introduction of popish innovations in the Church ; liberty and

Pym Arraigns the Government. 297
property had received mortal thrusts by the arbitrary admini
stration of the laws, arbitrary taxation, and other expedients
insupportable in a country with a Parliamentary constitution.
In Pym's eyes the history of the previous eleven years had
hopelessly discredited absolute rule, and Parliament must
take measures to make a repetition of the experiment im
possible. The remedy lay in a return to legal, constitutional
government ; not in revolutionary innovations. Pym was no
republican, as Eliot had been no revolutionist, no republican
before him. He would undo the mischief by restoring the
law to its place. " Though we have good laws, yet they want
their execution, and if they are executed it is in a wrong
sense." There was, in fact, a conspiracy to subvert the
constitution both in Church and State. " There is a design
to alter the kingdom both in religion and government. This
is the highest of treasons. . . . This concerns the king as
well as us ; and that I say with reverence and care of his
majesty." Before he sat down, he pointed at Strafford as
the grand abettor of this traitorous design. " Our fear is
from Ireland. The Irish army is to bring us to a better
order. We are not fully conquered."
Rudyard, Bagshaw, Culpepper, Holland, Digby, Grimston,
who took part in the debates of these opening days, were
equally indulgent towards the king, equally uncompromising
in their condemnation of autocratic government, whether in
theory or practice. Charles, they assumed, had only to be
shown the errors and crimes of the past to decide to eschew
them and join hands with his Parliament in remedying
them. But if the king was assumed to be guiltless of the
rampant evils in Church and State, which orator after orator
denounced in the most sweeping terms, his ministers must
pay the penalty. Rudyard, indeed, who inveighed as fiercely
as his fellow-orators against Popery and persecution in the
Church, misgovernment in the State, would have been satisfied
with the dismissal of evil counsellors, and a radical reform of
the abuses for which he held them responsible. " I am not
Vir Sanguinum ; I love no man's ruin ; I thank God I
neither hate any man's person, nor envy any man's fortune.
Only I am zealous for a thorough reformation in a time
that exacts it. Which I humbly beseech this House may

298 Redress and Justice Demanded.
be done with as much lenity, as much moderation, as the
public safety of the king and kingdom can possibly admit."
Bagshaw and Grimston struck a fiercer note. " What then
must be done ? " cried the former. " Why, what the plaister
cannot do must be done by the saw. Ense reddendum est, &c. ;
I cannot better English it than in the words of a king, ' Let
them be cut off in their wickedness that have framed mischief as
a law.' " " Mr Speaker," concluded Grimston, " this is the age
that hath produced and brought forth Ahithophels, Hamans,
Wolseys, Empsons, and Dudleys, Tresilians and Belknaps,
vipers and monsters of all sorts ; and I doubt not but when
his majesty shall be truly informed of such matters as we
are able to charge them withal, we shall have the same
justice against these, which heretofore hath been against their
predecessors, in whose wicked steps they have trodden."
Charles had thus to face in England a situation similar to
that which he had created in Scotland. On political and
religious grounds the mass of the nation was in a distinctly
combustible mood. As evidence of this fact these petitions
and speeches are absolutely conclusive. Only drastic reform
in Church and State could prevent a revolution south of the
Tweed similar to that which the Covenanters had accom
plished to the north of it. The same revolutionary elements
were at work in England as in Scotland. In England Charles
had presumed to ignore the rights of Parliament even more
flagrantly than in Scotland. The English Parliament was
a far more formidable body than the Scottish Estates, and
yet he had ventured to ignore its existence for over a de
cade. He had encroached on the property and liberty of
the subject, as if Magna Charta and the Petition of Right
were mere waste paper. And he could not even plead the
success of the experiment to justify his autocratic procedure.
If these petitions meant anything, they meant that Charles'
personal government had been a miserable failure. Strafford's
and Laud's " thorough " methods had simply driven the nation
into the arms of the rebellious Scots, and reduced both king
and nation to impotence in the face of a Scottish invasion.
" They (Strafford, Laud, &c.) speak highly of the king's
power," cried Rudyard ; " but they have made it a miserable
power that produceth nothing but weaknesse to both the

The Situation in England. 299
king and kingdome . . . they have almost spoiled the best
instituted government in the world ; for sovereignty in a
king, liberty to the subject — the proportionable temper
of both — makes the happiest state for power, for riches, for
duration." England could not, indeed, complain that Charles had
ignored the rights of the General Assembly as well as of
Parliament. An English Convocation was not a Scottish
General Assembly. But England did complain that Charles
had forced on it innovations in religion which Parliament
claimed, but had been denied the right to sanction or refuse,
and thus, practically, in this matter of innovations England
had the same grievances to resent as Scotland. These High
Church innovations, against which the orators inveighed so
bitterly, had been introduced in spite of the claims of Parlia
ment to be consulted. Ecclesiastically and politically, there
fore, the situation that confronted Charles in 'England in 1640
was nearly identical with the situation that had confronted
him in Scotland these two years past. The nation was prac
tically united in resisting religious as well as political abuses,
and in demanding, through its representatives, a sweeping
reform in Church as well as State. And in face of this
critical situation he could only rely, in England as in Scotland,
on the support of a court and clerical faction.
These Puritan orators, it may be admitted, exaggerated
the religious abuses against which they inveighed. Pym's
and Rudyard's denunciations of Laudian innovations seem, in
fact, but an echo of those of the Covenanters. For them, as
for the Covenanters, these innovations are rank Popery. They
can see iri Laud's aggressive High Churchism only a veiled
crusade in favour of the pope. There was doubtless exaggera
tion in this exegesis, as there was doubtless exaggeration in
the rumours that flew about of direct intrigues with Rome for
the same purpose. Neither in England nor in Scotland had
Charles and Laud really been innovating with a view to the
restoration of Popery, and they were not intriguing with papal
agents to this end. So much must in fairness be said in their
defence in the face of this Puritan outcry at Westminster.
They could justly retort that these Puritan orators were
misrepresenting their aims and misinterpreting the scope of

3°o The Puritan Outcry against; Popery.
their actions. On the other hand, it is clear even to us that
some of these innovations were distinct aberrations from the
Reformation spirit, and denoted what might almost be re
garded as a morbid tendency to magnify the letter at the
expense of the spirit. To the Puritans this tendency was
sufficiently hateful. That it savoured of Popery was intoler
able, and though it did not necessarily mean a return to
Popery, the Puritans could quote the opinions of Romanists
in support of their conviction that it did so. "Let them
not say," cried Rudyard, "that these are the perverse sus
picions and malicious interpretations of some few factious
spirits amongst us, when a Romanist hath bragged and con
gratulated in print 'that the face of our Church begins to
alter, the language of our religion to change.' And Sancta
Clara hath published ' that if a synod were held, non inter-
mixtis Puritanis (setting Puritans aside), our articles and
their religion would soon be agreed.' They have so brought
it to pass that under the name of Puritans, all our religion is
branded, and under a few hard words against Jesuits all
Popery is countenanced."
The Puritans might be mistaken in their interpretation
of the aims and motives of their opponents ; they certainly
had cause to complain of the treatment meted out to them by
these opponents. In England, as in Scotland, Charles and
Laud had not only ignored the fact that these High Church
practices did constitute Popery in the eyes of a large majority
of the nation ; they forced the compliance of this majority to
these " popish " innovations in the face of an opposition which
had again and again found decisive voice in Parliament as
well as in the nation. Nay, they had embittered the Puritan
conscience by a persecution far more rigorous than that
which for a quarter of a century had steeled the hearts of the
Scottish Presbyterians agamst Episcopacy and all its con
comitants. They had made use of the powers of the Star
Chamber, as well as the High Commission, against Puritan
recusants, and the cruel fate of a Leighton, a Prynne, a
Burton, a Bastwick, now rose up in judgment against them.
They had succeeded, besides, in forfeiting the sympathy of
many who were not rabid Puritans, and who were ere long to
refuse to follow the lead of a Pym, a Rudyard. Even Digby

The Attack on Strafford. 3°i
and Culpepper joined in the general invective against the
Canons, recently promulgated by Convocation, which accen
tuated the divine right of kings, as well as the High Church
principles of the Laudian school, and exacted an oath — the
Et Cetera oath of popular ridicule — to maintain the doctrine
and discipline of the English Church.
We need not be surprised, in view of this temper, that
Laud as well as Strafford found a place in these speeches
in the category of evil counsellors. The king might still be
inviolable in Puritan eyes. There was no thought of in
augurating a revolution at the throne. But that Charles may
be saved, his ministers, ecclesiastical as well as secular, must
pay the penalty. " The beginning of this Parliament," notes
our scribe, " seemed a little doomsday." Strafford's turn
came first. He had foreboded his doom, and had only re
luctantly yielded to Charles' pressing request to attend
Parliament. He pleaded in vain both the inexpediency of
such a course to the king and its danger to himself. Charles
was confident of his power to protect him and made light
of his fears. " The Parliament," he replied, " should not touch
one hair of his head." Strafford was sceptical, nevertheless,
and on his arrival from the army in the north, on the
9th November, resolved to anticipate the indictment which
he feared by accusing the leaders of the Parliament of
treasonable communications with the Scots. Pym was too
quick for him. Having got a hint of his intention from
friends at court, he suddenly rose in his place on the nth,
informed the House that he had a matter of grave importance
to bring before it, and asked that strangers be excluded and
the doors locked. This done, he called on Sir John Clot-
worthy, an Englishman of Ulster, who had been elected
member for Maiden, to make a communication involving
Strafford in a charge of high treason. The House promptly
nominated himself, St John, Hampden, Strode, Erie, Digby,
and Clotworthy as a committee to draw up a charge. The
charge thus hastily framed it approved, in spite of Lord
Falkland's plea for a fuller inquiry. Such an inquiry, urged
Pym, would mean delay, and delay would only invite a dis
solution. Prompt action on their part would at least put
it out of Strafford's power to do them this mischief, as he

302 Strafford Accused and Arrested.
certainly would seek to do. The doors were accordingly
unlocked, and Pym stalked forth, followed by a crowd of
members, to accuse their arch-enemy of high treason at the
bar of the Lords, and to request that meanwhile he might be
committed to custody. The Lords were equally prompt in
dealing with the emergency, and, we fear it must be added,
equally precipitate. In palliation of their precipitation, it
should be remembered that they too shared Pym's belief
that Strafford was too dangerous a man to be left at large.
For both sides it was simply a case of who should strike first.
Here is the description of the scene from the letters of Baillie,
who wrote an account of it to his wife in Scotland a week
later, and whose story is far more trustworthy than that of
Clarendon, whose memory evidently failed him after the lapse
of so many years. Pym and his fellow-Commoners being
removed, " The Lords," he tells us, " began to consult on that
strange and unexpected motion. The word goes in haste to
the Lord-Lieutenant, where he was with the king. With
speed he comes to the House. He calls rudelie at the doore.
James Maxwell, Keeper of the Black Rod, opens. , His
lordship with a proud, glouming countenance, makes towards
his place at the boordhead ; but at once many bids him
void the house. So he is forced in confusion to goe to doore
till he was called. After consultation, being called in, he
stands ; but is commanded to kneel, and on his knees, to
heare the sentence. Being on his knees, he is delivered to
the Keeper of the Black Rod, to be prisoner till he was
cleared of these crimes the House of Commons did charge
him with. He offered to speak, but was commanded to be
gone without a word. In the outer room, James Maxwell
required him, as prisoner, to deliver his sword. When he
had gotten it, he cries with a loud voice for his man to carrie
my Lord-Lieutenant's sword. This done he makes through
a number of people towards his coach, all gazing, no man
cuffing (uncovering) to him, before whom that morning the
greatest of England would have stood discovered ; all crying,
' What is the matter ? ' He said, ' A small matter, I warrant
you ! ' They replied, ' Yes, indeed, high treason is a small
matter.' Coming to the place where he expected his coach, it
was not there ; so he behoved to returne that same way through

Charges against Laud and Others. 3°3
a world of gazing people. When at last he had found his coach
and was entering, James Maxwell told him, ' Your lordship is
my prisoner and must go in my coach.' So he behoved to do."
A fortnight later the prisoner was removed from the
custody of Black Rod to the safer keeping of the Lieutenant
of the Tower.
The hands of the Commons fell with equal heaviness,
though not so swiftly, on other abettors of Charles' autocratic
regime. On the 18th December the Commons once more
went forth in procession, led this time by Holies, to accuse
W. Laud of the crime charged against Strafford, and to
demand his provisional imprisonment. Once more the Lords
promptly complied, and Laud, after passing into the custody
of Black Rod, ultimately found, like Strafford, a lodging in
the Tower. Secretary Windebank, the patron of Papist
recusants, and the medium of the queen's intrigues with
Rome, was more fortunate, if less courageous, and gave his
inquisitors the slip by a timely escape to France. Lord
Keeper Finch, the hated champion of ship-money, had suffi
cient hardihood to face the Commons and defend his conduct
in a lengthy harangue. He pleaded the royal command in
justification of all his actions, disavowed responsibility for
the policy which he had been instrumental with others in
carrying out, and asserted that he had honestly done what he
considered to be his duty in all the offices he had held. His
rhetoric failed utterly to convince the men who knew the
tactics to which he had stooped, as Lord Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, to secure a verdict for the king at the ex
pense of both property and liberty, and who remembered
the scene of 1629 when, as Speaker, he persisted in obeying
the command of the king against the will of the majority
of the House. His very eloquence told against him. " Had
not this syren so sweet a tongue," exclaimed Alex. Rigby,
" surely he could not have effected so much mischief in this
kingdom." Fiat Justitia, therefore. Finch saw that he had
expended his eloquence in vain, and slipped away in dis
guise to Holland before the Commons had time to launch
the charge of treason against him. It was not till three
weeks after his flight that Falkland appeared before the
Lords to proclaim him a traitor in absentia.

304 Condemnation of Abuses.
More mercy was shown to the lesser delinquents in Church
and State. Two of Laud's High Church brethren on the
bench, Bishops Wren of Ely and Piers of Bath and Wells,
were bound over in large sums to appear when called on to
answer for their anti-Puritan zeal. Six of Finch's fellow-
judges, who had concurred in the ship-money judgment, were
similarly admitted to bail, and only one of them, Sir R,
Berkeley, was subsequently arrested as he sat on the bench
and imprisoned on a charge of treason. The Commons did
not hesitate to strike even at their own members, and expelled
all the more obnoxious monopolists from the House. On the
other hand, they set at liberty the victims of persecution in
Church and State, and Leighton, Lilburne, Prynne, Burton,
Bastwick returned in triumph to testify at their bar against
their persecutors and receive compensation for their injuries.
The Lords were equally prompt in demanding justice for
Bishop Williams, who, at their instigation, was restored both
to liberty and to his see.
In the midst of this crusade against the abettors Of
autocratic government, the Commons found time to deal the
first blows at some of the abuses from which the nation had
suffered under their regime. " Never such a Parliament in
England," wrote Baillie on the 1 2th December, " all is to be
rectified, for all is much out of right." They began on the
9th November with the condemnation of monopolies. A
month later they unanimously resolved that ship-money was
an illegal exaction, and quashed the judgment against
Hampden (7th December). " These persons," cried Falk
land, in a scathing indictment of the judges, "who should
have been as dogs to defend the sheep, have been as wolves
to worry them." Falkland had no patience with the legal
subtleties with which the judges had sought to veil their
servility. They had, he contended, in despite of the Petition
of Right and the clearest decisions of Parliament, done their
utmost to make of the free English nation a nation of villeins,
and it was in the name of freedom, as well as property, that
he demanded, and the House agreed to the condemnation of
their fateful judgment. Nor was the resolution a mere class
protest. It was not merely in the name of the propertied
classes that Falkland denounced illegal exaction. It was the

Revival of Parliamentary Consciousness. 3°$
sworn duty of the judges to do equal justice to all. "The
greatest person in this kingdom," cried he nobly, "cannot
(legally) continue the least violence upon the meanest."
With equal unanimity they resolved on the 15th and 16th
December that Convocation had no power to make Canons, in
doctrine or discipline, without consent of Parliament, and that
those lately promulgated were contrary both to the royal pre
rogative and the rights of Parliament. Holbourne ventured,
indeed, to claim for Convocation legislative power similar to
that of a Scottish Assembly, but the absolutist principles and
the Et Cetera oath, to which Laud and his school had thirled
the Church, were too dangerous to find any quarter in the eyes
of his fellow-orators, and the resolution passed nemine contra-
dicente. Never apparently was the theory of divine right,
whether of kings or bishops, at so low an ebb. " Mr Speaker,"
cried Nath. Fiennes, the Puritan Lord Saye's son, "we all
know that kings, and states, and judges, and all magistrates
are the ordinances of God, but, sir, give me leave to say they
were the ordinances of men before they were the ordinances
of God." Before this matter-of-fact Puritan spirit, the nimbus
was about to disappear from the head of the king as well as
the bishop.
In these resolutions, the revival of what we might call the
Parliamentary consciousness is unmistakable. It was not
enough, however, in condemning these abuses, to resolve aca
demically that Parliament possessed rights. It was essential
to guarantee their exercise for the future. This, urged Digby,
on the 19th January 1641, is the Unum Necessarium, the
one thing needful. " Unless for the frequent convening of
Parliaments there be some such course settled as may not be
eluded, neither the people can be prosperous and secure, nor
the king himself solidly happy. I take this to be the Unum
Necessarium. Let us procure this, and all our other desires
will effect themselves." There must be no further attempts at
prerogative government, no more arbitrary dissolutions. The
king must regularly summon Parliament ; he must be guided
by its will ; he must not allow himself to be led away by
ministers of the " thorough " type into unconstitutional courses;
he must yield up these " ill ministers '' to condign justice, give
himself into the hands of a loyal Parliament. Good govern-
VOL. III. U

306 Triennial Parliaments.
ment can only be attained by restoring the harmony between
crown and Parliament, and if only this harmony can be
restored a new era of happiness and prosperity for both king
and nation will dawn upon the land. So much even those
who were to become the staunchest loyalists were determined
to exact ; so much Charles must unequivocally yield. There
was as yet no fear of serious friction, least of all of a revolution.
The king has only been wrongly led for want of a Parliament
to lead him aright. To this end Strode had already, on the
24th December, moved a Bill for annual Parliaments on the
lines of the statute of Edward III. It was moved a second
time on the 30th by Oliver Cromwell. Before the third read
ing on the 19th January, however, it had been transformed
into a Bill for triennial Parliaments. The Lords were asked
to agree arid Charles to enact not only that a Parliament
should be held once every three years, but, in order to frustrate
all evasion, that the Lord Chancellor should, within six days
of the expiry of the third year, be bound on oath to summon
the peers and issue writs for the election of the Commons. In
case he failed to do so, the peers should assemble in virtue of
this Act, and in his stead issue writs for an election. In case,
further, the sheriffs of counties should refuse to proceed to an
election, the electors were empowered to convene and choose
their representatives notwithstanding. Moreover, any person
attempting to hinder these elections, by proclamation or other
wise, was liable to severe penalties. Finally, the Parliament
thus convened should not be dissolved or prorogued till fifty
days at least after the first day of meeting, and with the
consent of both Houses as well as the king. Nor could it be
adjourned during the same period except by the free consent
of the members.
No language could be more explicit. The king must
either call a Parliament every three years, or Parliament
would do it in spite of him. No plea of prerogative would
henceforth be allowed to deprive the nation of the oppor
tunity to review the administration at stated intervals. Pre
rogative must square with the national will in this matter, or
the national will would simply ignore it. Charles did not
relish this alternative, and summoned both Houses to the
Banqueting Hall at Whitehall to inform them of the fact

Charles Out of Touch with Age. 3°7
(25th January). He was ready to sanction all necessary
reforms, but he could not consent to any limitation of his
authority. " I shall willingly and cheerfully concur for the
reformation of all innovations both in Church and common
wealth. . . . For my intention is clearly to reduce all things
to the best and purest times in which they were in the time of
Queen Elizabeth. . . . There is a Bill lately put in concern
ing Parliaments. The thing I like very well to have, frequent
Parliaments ; but to give power to sheriffs and constables, and I
know not whom, to use my authority, that I cannot yield to."
Still, as ever, out of touch with his age. Charles I.
should have been born in the days of Henry VIIL It was
as if he had, Barbarossa like, slept a century in the cave of
absolute monarchy, and waking up in the generation of an
Eliot and a Pym, could not recognise the world in which he
would fain imagine himself. " The time of Elizabeth," not
to mention,the time of a Henry VIIL, had long ceased to be
the constitutional ideal of the English nation. Both sides
had, in fact, overpassed the Elizabethan age. The champions
of prerogative had pushed the doctrine of Divine Right to
the length of ignoring Parliament, which Elizabeth had been
too wise to dO. The champions of Parliament had, on the
contrary, persistently appealed from prerogative to legal right.
For nearly three hundred years, that is, since the reign of
Edward III., Englishmen might legally claim to be regularly
convened by representation at Westminster, and in demanding
triennial Parliaments they were keeping well within the limit
of their legal rights. What was new was that it should no
longer be, in the king's power to prevent them from
exercising this right on any pretext whatever, not even of
prerogative. Three weeks later Charles was fain to comply. The four
subsidies which the Commons offered along with the Triennial
Bill made the sacrifice less poignant. The joy of London,
which rang its bells and blazed into bonfires in celebration
of the event, might also have lessened his chagrin. It was
something to be thankful for, that after so many years of
sullen silence the voice of popular rejoicing was heard once
more in the land in celebration of his majesty's goodness.
For Charles, however, it was not pleasant that these bells

3°8 Question of Ecclesiastical Reform.
were ringing and bonfires blazing as much in recognition of
the victory of Parliament as of the royal goodness. More
over, to many his compliance was simply an act of justice,
not of generosity. " It was," said they (to quote the Parlia
mentary scribe), " not so much as by law they might require,
there being two statutes then in force for a Parliament once
a yeere." So far the Commons were practically unanimous. The
abuses of the previous ten years of personal government
must be eradicated, and the resolution against ship-money
was only the forerunner of resolutions against the other
props of that government — the Star Chamber, the High
Commission, the Council of the North. Parliament must, too,
be guaranteed against " intromission." It was more difficult
to attain agreement on the question of religion. The re
action against the bishops reached its climax in the petition
presented by Alderman Pennington, on the nth December,
in the name of 15,000 of his London fellow-citizens. It was
followed later on by petitions from Kent and other counties
and by a remonstrance signed by 1,000 ministers. The
London petition asked for nothing less than the abolition
of Episcopacy, "roots and branches." The men of Kent
would similarly be satisfied only with " the total abroga
tion of the hierarchical power." The ministers asked for
at least, a thorough reformation of the abuses rampant in
the Church. The London petitioners adduced many griev
ances against which the Puritan conscience might well
rebel, more especially the introduction of innovations against
the people's will and the persecution of nonconformists.
They rightly condemned the divine right of Episcopacy as
detrimental to the rights of both king and Parliament. At
the same time, the note of harsh dogmatism, the lack of
charity towards opponents which characterise it were not
fitted to commend it to moderate men, and the demand for
the radical overthrow of Episcopacy in favour of Presby
terianism was simply to throw down the gauntlet to those
to whom the Episcopal tradition was dear. All were agreed
that reformation was necessary in the Church, as in the State.
A large number refused to go the length of a root and
branch revolution. On the 8th of February, therefore, when

Digby and Moderate Reform. 3°9
Digby rose to denounce the petition, and on the following
day, the members for the first time found themselves
involved in hot debate pro and contra. Digby, Falkland, Hyde,
Grimston, Culpepper, Strangways, and others were arrayed
against Root and Branch champions like Fiennes, Bagshaw,
Cromwell. Digby did not spare the bishops. He would
clip their wings, would make it impossible for them for
the future to bring in innovations at their pleasure, and
oppress and persecute the best of the clergy for resistance
to their arbitrary government. The persecutions of the last
dozen years were, he admitted, sufficient to drive the people
to madness. " For my part, I profess I am so inflamed with
the sense of them that I find myself ready to cry out with
the loudest of the 15,000, 'Down with them!' 'Down with
them ! ' even to the ground." Yet the abuse of the Epis
copal function was no adequate reason for the abolition of
Episcopacy itself, and he could not stand either the form
or the substance of the petition. It evidently offended his
aristocratic instincts. It was not for a multitude of men to
prescribe to Parliament, and it was for Parliament to beware
of being led away by the passion of the mob. Moreover,
the petition was a comet with a terrible tail pointing towards
the north, and he would be no party to the substitution of
Presbytery for Prelacy. Not only would this be to sub
stitute one tyranny for another ; it would endanger the
monarchy itself. " I am confident that instead of every
bishop that we put down in a diocese, we shall set up a
pope in every parish . . . and I do not think a king can put
down bishops totally with safety to the monarchy." He
would retain, while reforming, the Episcopal order, and he
trusted to triennial Parliaments to prevent the recurrence of
the abuses of which the petitioners complained.
Falkland, Grimston, and others were equally severe on the
tyranny and usurpation of the bishops, equally emphatic on
the necessity of trenchant reform. But they, too, believed in
historical Episcopacy and in the power of Parliament to check
the abuses of the Episcopal jurisdiction. Presbyterianism,
they conceived, was neither accordant with the feeling of the
nation nor with the Parliamentary control over the Church,
which they deemed necessary.

310 Fiennes Denounces Episcopacy.
Very different was the tone of Fiennes in reply to Digby.
He had no nervous fear of popular pressure. If it was
desirable to change the law, the fact that many desired the
change only afforded a stronger reason why it should be
changed. He saw no evidence in the petition of a desire to
dictate to Parliament, and Parliament was bound to give due
consideration to the will of the people, respectfully expressed.
He refused to believe that Episcopacy was the primitive form
of Church government. " So far as the Acts of the Apostles
and the New Testament goeth, which was the ancientest and
most primitive time of Christianity, I could never find there
was any distinction between a bishop and a presbyter, but
that they were one and the very same thing." It was not,
however, necessary, in abolishing Episcopacy, to substitute
Presbytery. Let the king, as head of the Church, transfer
their jurisdiction to a body of commissioners appointed by
himself. Apart from the abuses of Episcopal government, its
principle was, he contended, absolutely incompatible with the
civil constitution of a country like England. Its principle
was autocratic, and the autocratic principle was, he declared,
dangerous in a free monarchy. " In the civil government
every man, from the greatest to the least, hath some share in
the government, according to the proportion of his interest in
the commonwealth. But in the government of the Church
all is in the hands of one man in the several dioceses . . . and
he exacts canonical obedience to his pontifical commands
with a total exclusion of those that, notwithstanding, have as
much share in the Church, and consequently as much interest
in the government of it, as they have in that of the common
wealth. Sir, until the ecclesiastical government be framed
something of another twist, and be more assimilated unto that
of the commonwealth, I fear the ecclesiastical government
will be no good neighbour unto the civil, but will be still a
casting in of its leaven into it, to reduce that also to a sole,
absolute, and arbitrary way of proceeding. And herein, sir, I
do not believe that I utter prophecies, but what we have
already found and felt."
It was a forcible argument in the circumstances. The
bishops had in England, as in Scotland, been the abettors of
arbitrary courses both in Church and State. It was, however,

Heated Debate over Question. 311
very questionable whether the mass of the English nation
was prepared to admit Fiennes' conclusion that Episcopacy in
principle was incompatible with Parliamentary government,
and a large minority in Parliament certainly was not ready to
acquiesce in logical legislation of this sort. As the debate
proceeded party feeling accordingly waxed excited and
angry, and threatened to bring the work of reform to a dead
lock. The Root and Branch men insisted on pressing the
question of the abolition of Episcopacy. They would not
hear of the rejection of the petition, and demanded that it
should be remitted to a committee with a view to legislation
on the lines suggested by it. The more conservative members
strenuously resisted, in the interests of monarchy as well as
Episcopacy. They raised the old cry of No bishop, no king,
and fell foul of Presbytery as a government of anarchy. " If
we make a parity in the Church," cried Sir John Strangways,
"we must at last come to a parity in the commonwealth.
The bishops are one of the three estates of the kingdom, and
have a voice in Parliament." To Cromwell this was mere
prejudice, and he did not hesitate to say so in his bluntest
fashion. " I know no reason," retorted he, " of these supposi
tions and inferences which the gentleman has made that has
last spoken." The remark was by no means offensive, but
Cromwell's tone and gesture must have betrayed the contempt
he felt for such sophisms, and angry cries, "To the bar,"
greeted the sally. . Pym and Holies tried to calm the clamour
by asking Cromwell to explain himself, whilst D'Ewes pro
tested against the unfairness of calling members to the bar
for such trivialities. Cromwell stood his ground. " He could
not understand why the gentleman that last spoke should
make an inference of parity from the Church to the common
wealth. . . . He was more convinced touching the irregularity
of bishops than ever before, because like the Roman hierarchy
they would not endure to have their condition come to a
trial." Ultimately, the House decided by a majority to remit the
petition, leaving the question of Episcopacy in abeyance in
the meantime. The result was a resolution on the loth
March that the legislative and judicial power of bishops in
tjie House of Peers was prejudicial to the commonwealth, and

3!2 Arraignment of Strafford.
ought to be abolished. It was followed by another on the
i ith, condemning the exercise by bishops or other clergymen
of the office of justice of the peace, or judges in the Star
Chamber, or any civil court. Bills embodying these resolu
tions were at the same time ordered to be drawn up.
The moderate reformers had thus carried it over the Root
and Branch men, but for the present the progress of the Bills
was impeded by the impeachment of Strafford. By the
middle of March the Commons were at last ready with the
evidence which was to prove him a traitor, and on the 22nd
of that month Pym and his fellow-managers appeared in
Westminster Hall to open the case against him. Besides the
Commons, the Commissioners of Scotland and Ireland were
present as accusers. Strafford stood at bay before the
enmity of three nations. Many there had been present at
the impeachment of Bacon and Middlesex, but these trials
pale into insignificance in comparison with that of a man who
to three nations was the incarnation of all that was oppressive
and hateful in Stuart absolutism. So sensible were the
representatives of these nations of the power of this proud,
masterful spirit, that his accusation was a question of life and
death, not merely to Strafford, but to his accusers. The
mighty Lord - Lieutenant must be crushed if England,
Scotland, Ireland were to breathe freely. His acquittal
would mean to them the doom of those reforms on which
hung the welfare of the commonwealth. Hence the intense
interest attaching to the scene that for six weeks kept the
nerves of England on the stretch, and formed for the accused
man a long agony. " So great it was," notes May, " that we
can hardly call it the trial of the Earl of Strafford onely ; the
king's affections towards his people and Parliament, the
future successe of this Parliament, and the hopes of three
kingdoms depending on it, were all tried when Strafford was
arraigned." Unfortunately for the accused, it was hardly possible that
he should obtain a fair hearing, and still more unfortunately,
he had done his utmost to make himself the victim of a
people's vengeance. He had identified himself with a hated
system of government, and though he was technically not
guilty of treason, he must atone for the system which he

The Indictment. 3X3
represented. Stuart absolutism must be condemned, and if
Charles was inviolable, Strafford must atone for his inviol
ability. The indictment consisted of twenty-eight articles. The
first two charged him with illegal and oppressive conduct in
his capacity as President of the Council of the North. The
next seventeen bore on his government of Ireland. As
Lord-Deputy or Lord-Lieutenant, he had governed Ireland
as a conquered nation, which the king was at liberty to rule
as he pleased. Witness the arbitrary treatment of the Earl
of Cork, Lord; Mountnorris, Lord Dillon, and others. He
had further been guilty of exaction and corruption for his
own benefit, and had more especially ruined the trade of the
country by his corrupt patronage of monopolists. In prose
cution of his arbitrary designs, he had not refrained from
using military force against the king's Irish subjects, had
maintained an army of Papists to overawe the Protestants,
and had abused the royal authority in establishing his own
tyranny. The remaining articles dealt with his malignant
interference in the affairs of England and Scotland. He had,
for instance, laboured by every means in his power to frus
trate the Pacification of Berwick and incite war between the
king and the Scots. He had raised an army in Ireland not
merely for service against the Scots, but with the intention of
employing it to subvert the laws and established government
of England itself. He had, moreover, advised his majesty
that, failing the grant of an adequate subsidy by the English
Parliament, he should levy by prerogative whatever taxes he
deemed necessary, and that in so doing he would stand
exonerated in the sight of God and man. In this spirit he
had procured the dissolution of the Short Parliament without
redress of grievances, had thereupon actually counselled the
employment of the Irish army to coerce the people of England,
and had adopted unconstitutional and oppressive expedients
for the purpose of prosecuting the Scottish war. Finally, as
Lieutenant-General of the English army, he had failed to
defend the country from a Scottish invasion, and had never
theless laboured to engage the two nations in a bloody and
ruinous war.
In all these things the Commons discovered indubitable

3T4 Was Strafford Guilty of Treason?
proofs of " an intention and endeavour to alienate and with
draw the hearts and affections of the king's liege people of all
his realms from his majesty, and to set division between them
and to ruine and destroy his majesty and his said kingdoms."
Such intention and endeavour Strafford most strenuously
denied, and it was to make good the interpretation of the
Commons and refute the contention of the accused that Pym,
Maynard, Whitelock, and others pressed the indictment at
the bar of the Lords. On technical grounds it was impossible,
without manifest twisting of words, to make good this inter
pretation. Strafford was indubitably guilty of aiding and
abetting arbitrary, autocratic government. He had devoted
all the force of a strong personality to the task of autocratic
ally ruling Ireland and helping to rule both England and
Scotland after the same fashion. Such government was con
trary to the constitution in all three kingdoms, but it had the
sanction of the king, and to arraign Strafford was really to
arraign Charles himself. He had conspired neither against
the life nor the throne of his sovereign, but had devoted his
great ability to strengthen his authority on both sides of the
Irish Sea. In so doing he had indeed helped to drive Scot
land into rebellion, and roused the spirit of rebellion in
England, but he had done so in asserting what he himself
believed and what Charles believed with him to be the rights
of the crown against a disloyal nation. Technically, there
fore, there was no treason to the king in doing what was
practically the royal will, and it was only in the inference
that his actions had been detrimental to the real interests of
the king as well as the people that there was any force in the
contention of his accussers. He had been the abettor of a
system which had roused rebellion in Scotland and bred
rebellious discontent in England and Ireland, and had en
dangered the stability of the throne in all three kingdoms.
Legally, however, this was not treason, and it would have
been more equitable if his accusers had merely charged him
with attempting to subvert the constitution and left the
description and punishment of his crime to the discretion of
his judges. By not doing so they really weakened their case,
for Strafford had no difficulty in proving that the charges
against him did not come within the scope of the law of

His Irish Administration. 3r5
treason. Moreover he defended himself with such skill and
resource that many of the counts of the indictment were
clearly untenable. Pym's representation of his Irish admini
stration as that of a corrupt tyrant was, in truth, an exaggera
tion. His regime had been in many respects beneficial to
Ireland. It was that of a reformer rather than a tyrant, and
the reformer found both scope and reason for his activity.
Overbearing and forceful he might be, but if tyranny consists
in the ruinous oppression of a country, tyranny was not the
name for his reforming regime. Individuals might indeed
suffer ; the nation as a whole prospered. The development
of shipping and industry, a considerable surplus in the Irish
Exchequer, which even his accusers were forced to admit,
argued strongly in favour of the material benefits that Ireland
owed to his government. Moreover his accusers made no
allowance for the difficulty of governing a country like Ireland.
They totally failed to understand the situation, and made the
mistake of treating Ireland as if it were a second England.
They spoke of the privileges and rights of the Irish Parliament
as if it had been a national representative assembly. They
forgot that the Irish Parliament represented but an alien
English and Anglo-Irish faction, and that Strafford had other
interests to consider besides those of a few factious magnates
who constituted themselves the Irish people. They might
exclaim against his blunt assertion that Ireland was a con
quered nation, and that charters and laws were subject to the
royal discretion. It was not of the wrongs of the conquered
Irish that they were thinking ; they had not a single word to
say on behalf of that unfortunate race which had been the
victim of the aggression of the faction that claimed a monopoly
of rights and privileges. It might be true that, as governor
of Ireland, Strafford had "set will above law," but Pym and
Maynard forgot that the law in Ireland was made by a
faction for the benefit of a faction, and that the will of a
strong reforming ruler was likely to be more just towards the
native population than that of a few Anglo-Irish magnates.
Arbitrary imprisonment and confiscation were no doubt
execrable, but they did not necessarily mean in Ireland what
they would have meant in England. It was not for men
who ignored the rights and wrongs of the Irish people to sit

316 His Conduct of English Affairs.
in judgment on the man who had to face a situation which
they did not understand or in fact care to understand, and
who called in question both their facts and their inferences as
mere party statements.
Nor were they more successful in substantiating the charge
of treason in the counts referring to English affairs. They
were, indeed," able to prove that Strafford's sagacity as an
English Privy Councillor was altogether at fault, that he had
under-estimated the force of the reaction against an autocratic
regime ; had presumed to trust in his own ability to deal with
England as he had dealt with Ireland ; had advised the king
to renew the war against Scotland without making sure of
the support of Parliament ; had urged him to levy taxes for
this purpose, despite its opposition ; and had, in short, placed
himself in antagonism to the national will and done his utmost
to mislead the king into aggressive courses. This was un
doubtedly a rash, nay, a fatal policy, and its failure was
complete. But was it treason, according to law? Maynard
contended that it was. Nay, the treason was only the greater,
inasmuch as it was directed against the laws of the land rather
than against the life of the king. One prince might be suc
ceeded by another. " But if laws and justice should be taken
from the throne and will placed there, we are without hope
of ever seeing remedy." Great, indeed, might be the danger
of the State, but it did not, after all, according to the strict
letter of the law, constitute the crime charged against the ac
cused. That crime, as the Attorney-General showed, amounted
not to treason, but to felony.
Strafford did not deny that he had advised the king to
renew the war against the Scots rather than submit to the
demands of the Scottish Parliament. He admitted, too, that
he had assured his majesty that he was justified, in the cir
cumstances, in using all necessary means to help himself if
Parliament refused to come to the rescue. He had, however,
meant no more than that he should use such expedients as
were allowed by his prerogative and the laws of the land. The
reservation was not very convincing as coming from one who
had been the chief abettor of the arbitrary government of
which Parliament complained, and it is highly probable that
Strafford would not have hesitated to enforce martial law

The Question of an Irish Invasion. 3*7
in England as in Ireland on the plea of royal necessity.
He had at least done his best to nurture this suspicion in
the minds not merely of the Commons, but of some of his
fellow Privy Councillors. But suspicion is not evidence, and
he disclaimed such an imputation. He claimed, moreover,
the right to give free expression to even unpopular opinions
at the Council board, and if to propound an opinion in free
debate in full Council was treason, no Councillor could ever
be sure of his life. " Opinion might make a heretic, but he
never heard before that opinion should make a traitor."
The most damning charge of all was undoubtedly the
intention imputed to him of subduing England by means
of a Papist Irish army. He conspired, urged Maynard, to
make of England a second Ireland — to deprive us of our
laws, our liberties, our religion. This was an argument which
no English jury could resist, if the evidence was at all fitted to
give it any colouring of probability. To Englishmen of that
day an Irish invasion meant all the horrors that an invasion
of Bashi-Bazouks would mean to their posterity to-day. " He
would have us," exclaimed his accuser, " without all rules of
government ; and these be the means — wicked and cruel
counsels, and the cruelty of an army inspired with his spirit,
and consisting of Papists, enemies of our religion. And what
mercy could we of this religion expect from popish enemies
with swords in. their hands? That cannot but strike all
English hearts with horror and dread, that an Irish army
should be brought into England to reduce the subjects of
England. ... I cannot but say, here is the counsel of Haman
when he would in one day cut off all the Jewish nation and
have the king intend a favour to him."
Here, again, the evidence was not sufficient to support the
inference. During a debate in the Committee of Eight for
Scottish affairs on the question of renewing the war against
the Scots, Strafford, in addressing the king, had used the
words, "You have an army in Ireland which you may
employ to reduce this kingdom." Sir Harry Vane was
called to testify that he had spoken these words, but he
was unable to say that the phrase, " this kingdom," referred
to England, and Northumberland, Hamilton, Juxon, and
Cottington, who were present at the meeting in question,

318 Strafford on the Defensive.
were positive that his design was to land an Irish army in
the west of Scotland and to use it against the Scots.
Strafford himself denied point blank that he had ever con
ceived the idea of an Irish invasion of England, and it is
evident to the impartial reader that he was speaking of
Scotland, not of England. He quoted in conclusion the
treason statutes to show that nothing of a treasonable
nature had been proved against him, and he warned his
judges to beware of forging a two-edged sword against
themselves by such an arbitrary interpretation of the law.
"If way be given to arbitrary treason, and to the wits of
men to work upon it, to question or prejudice life, it would
be very dangerous. In this hall there would be actions of
treason that would fly as familiarly up and down as actions
of trespass." " These gentlemen tell me they speak in defence
of the commonweal against arbitrary treason ; give me
leave to say that I speak in defence of the commonweal
against their arbitrary treason ; for if this latitude be ad
mitted, what prejudice shall follow to the king, to the country,
if you and your posterity be disabled by the same from the
greatest affairs of the kingdom ! For my poor self, if it were
not your lordships' interest, and the interest of a saint in
heaven, who hath left me two pledges here on earth, I should
never take the pains to keep up this ruinous cottage of mine.
It is laden with such infirmities that in truth I have no great
pleasure to carry it longer about with me, nor could I leave
it ever in a better time than this, when I hope that the better
part of the world would perhaps think by this my misfortune
I had given a testimony of my integrity to God, my king, and
country." (13th April.)
From the legal standpoint the impeachment of Strafford
had broken down. The strength of the man had made itself
felt ; the weakness of his accusers had made itself felt as well.
They had failed to establish treason as defined by law, and
the peers could not justly sentence him to death as a traitor
on the charges against him. It clearly was unjust to try to
make him the victim of a forced interpretation of a certain
statute. There were, too, signs of rising friction between the
two Houses. If Strafford was to atone for the arbitrary
government which was laid to his charge, the Commons

The Bill of Attainder. 3^
must go on another tack. The Commons were equal to
the contingency. It might be impossible for the Lords to
convict Strafford of treason, but Lords and Commons might
unite in bringing him to the block by Bill of Attainder.
They had merely to pass such a Bill and get the king to
give his assent, and not a single argument that the accused
had urged in explanation or vindication of his conduct need
stand in the way of his execution, though they allowed his
counsel to speak on his behalf as to matter of law, if not as
to matter of fact. This was practical at least, and it had
the additional merit of being straightforward. On legal
grounds Strafford was no traitor ; on political grounds he
deserved to undergo the penalty of high treason, and ac
cordingly on a general statement of his high misdemeanours
as a minister of State, the Commons, in spite of the opposition
of a minority led by Digby, and ultimately the Lords — also in
spite of a small minority — voted him guilty of this crime and
sentenced him to death. They left the treason laws out of
account and simply declared, in virtue of their supreme legis
lative authority, that the actions attributed to Strafford were
treason, treason to the nation, if not to the king, and should
be punished accordingly. Even if some of the assertions of
the preamble were open to question, there could be no doubt
that by aiding and abetting Charles in his autocratic govern
ment, by urging him to aggressive courses in both England
and Scotland, he had been guilty of " endeavouring to subvert
the ancient and fundamental laws of his majesty's realm . . .
and introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government against
law in the said kingdoms." Strafford's motives might not be
what Pym and Maynard, Whitelock and Glyn held them to
be ; he might argue himself into the belief that the powers
exercised by the crown were compatible with the constitution.
The patent fact was that the personal government of the
previous decade was in many respects unconstitutional, and
that Strafford was prepared, in spite of his professions of
respect for liberty tempered by monarchy, to go all the
length of his principles, in case of Parliamentary resistance,
and make the king virtually absolute. Politically, therefore,
the Commons might justly argue that such a man was a
traitor to the constitution, an enemy of the State worthy

320 Wherein Strafford's Guilt Lay.
of death. He had, unfortunately, done his utmost, even if we
admit with the best intentions in the world, to invite the stern
conclusion. He had conspired with Laud to maintain an
arbitrary, oppressive regime in Church and State, as his
letters amply show. He had belied his former advocacy of
legal, constitutional government, and invited, if he did not
altogether merit, the charge of apostasy. He had done what
in him lay to discredit Parliament and confirm the king in
his autocratic aspirations, and had thus courted the hostility
and hatred of all to whom the constitution was a peerless
heritage. Had Charles been born for the role of absolute
king, like a Henry IV. or a Louis XIV., Strafford might have
succeeded in playing the part of a Richelieu in England, and
perhaps even in Scotland, as he undoubtedly succeeded in
Ireland. Charles was not a Louis XIV. and England or
Scotland was not France, and the man who urged such a
ruler of such a nation to play the autocrat, was laying up
for himself the inevitable retribution of which the Bill of
Attainder was the stern expression.
Yet it is regrettable that the Commons conceived them
selves under the necessity of having recourse to one of the
expedients of the most tyrannic of English kings in order to
compass this retribution. They, too, were guilty of "exer
cising a tyrannous and exorbitant power " to meet a special
emergency, and strict justice would have demanded that if
acts like those of Strafford were to be decreed treasonable,
the accused should have the benefit of indulgence on the
ground that the law could not fairly have a retrospective force.
Such indulgence the situation rendered it difficult, if not
impossible, to observe. Pym and Hampden hesitated at first
to follow the example of a Henry VIIL, and were in favour
of prosecution by impeachment. , They gave way to the
determination of the majority of their fellow-Commoners,
and there was force in the argument based on necessity. The
Commons were suspicious of both Charles and Strafford.
Charles, they were convinced, had not even yet learned to
waive without reservation his autocratic principles of govern
ment, would not frankly and unreservedly give himself into
the hands of the men who championed the rights of Parlia
ment and nation. He had his afterthoughts of ultimately in

Intrigues that undid Him. 32*
some way being able to govern on his own terms, and
Strafford they felt was the man, if any man could, to retrieve
his position. He refused to disband the Irish army, and the
Irish army might prove a terrible danger in Strafford's hands.
Rumours of plots, too, filled the air— plots in the army, plots
at court, plots to crush the Parliament, to crush the Protestant
religion, to rescue Strafford and frustrate justice by force.
These plots were no mere exaggerations of popular credulity
and excitement. Their authors went the length of intriguing
for the landing of a French army. Every Royalist brain was
busy with plans to save Strafford and vindicate the royal
authority, and the brains of Charles and the queen were as
busy as the rest.
The knowledge of these intrigues sealed the doom of the
man they were meant to save, and Charles by countenancing
them, instead of coming to a definite straightforward under
standing with his Parliament, did his best to undo him. On
ist May he appeared in the Lords to give an absolute assur
ance that Strafford had never advised him to bring over the
Irish army, or subvert the constitution, and to declare that he
deemed him unfit to serve in any office of State, even that of
a constable. It was in vain. On the 3rd May London broke
into riot, and a furious mob besieged the House of Lords with
cries for justice on the traitor. It pilloried the names of the
minority of the Commons, which had voted against the
Attainder Bill, in a placard with the superscription " Straf-
fordians, betrayers of their country." On the same day the
Commons joined in a Protestation to maintain the Protestant
religion and to defend the king, the privileges of Parliament,
and the rights and liberties of the subject against all plotters
to their detriment. The excitement and alarm that prevailed
in the Lower House and in the city at last took possession of
the peers. On the 4th they adhered to the Protestation, and
on the 8th they read the Bill of Attainder a third time.
Along with it they passed another, which the fear of a violent
dissolution had brought forth in the Commons, and which
enacted that the present Parliament should not be dissolved
without its own consent.
Charles was in a terrible dilemma, for which he had largely
to thank his own hesitation and underhand dealing during the
VOL. III. X

322 Charles Sacrifices Strafford.
past weeks. He had already thereby forfeited the confidence
of a large majority of both Houses, and he had to face the
alternative of either going back on his promise to Strafford
and giving his assent, or risking a revolution. For two days
he stood at bay battling with his conscience, with the impor
tunities of his Privy Council, with the threats of the clamour
ing mob outside Whitehall. Strafford himself had absolved
him of his promise, and even urged him not to let his person
stand between him and his own safety. On the ioth he gave
way and empowered a commission to give his assent to both
Bills. It was the act of a weak man ; it was, at the same
time, in the pass to which he had allowed things to come, the
only possible one. " If my own person only were in danger,"
said he in broken accents to the Council, " I would gladly
venture it to save Lord Strafford's life, but seeing my wife,
children, and all my kingdoms are concerned in it, I am forced
to give way unto it." Charles would have appeared in a more
reputable light had he taken on himself the responsibility of
his blundering tactics, and boldly said, Nay, come what might,
as he was in honour bound to do. To allow the situation to
get so far out of control as to become the slave of it was both
bad policy and lamentable blundering. All he needed to do
in order to save Strafford was to inspire absolute confidence
in his own integrity, and his failure to do this proved fatal
both to Strafford and in the long run to himself.
A written appeal to the Lords on the morrow to temper
judgment with mercy met with no response, and on the follow
ing day, the 12th of May, Strafford came forth from the Tower
to his doom. The night before he had asked the lieutenant of
the Tower for permission to speak with Laud. The lieutenant
referred him to Parliament. " No," said he, " I have gotten
my despatch from them, and will trouble them no more. I
am now petitioning a higher Court where neither partiality
can be expected nor error feared." " Desire the archbishop,"
added he to the Primate of Ireland, who was present, " to lend
me his prayers this night and to give me his blessing when I
go abroad to-morrow, and to be in his window that, by my
last farewell, I may give him thanks for this and all other his
former favours."
As Strafford strode past on the morrow he caught sight of

Strafford on the Scaffold. 323
Laud gazing down from the window of his apartment. " My
lord," cried he, " your prayers and blessing." Laud complied,
and then sank in a faint to the floor. " Farewell, my lord,"
called he, "God protect your innocency." The lieutenant
begged him to take a seat in his coach. " No, Master Lieu
tenant," was the response, " I dare look death in the face, and
I hope the people too. Have you a care that I do not escape,
and I care not how I die, whether by the hand of the execu
tioner, or the madness and fury of the people. If that may
give them better content, it is all one to me."
He continued to stride forward, erect and fearless — " more
like a general at the head of an army than like a condemned
man," says the narrator — to the scaffold on Tower Hill.
From that scaffold he addressed the multitude in unfaltering
tones, forgiving his enemies and disclaiming any antagonism
to the Parliamentary constitution, deploring the error of those
who would begin the work of reformation with the blood of the
innocent, and professing his firm faith in the creed of the
Church of England. He then engaged in prayer, spoke some
touching words of his wife and children, and finally made
ready for the blow of the executioner. His courage endured
to the end. " I thank God," cried he, " I am no more afraid
of death, nor daunted with any discouragements arising from
any fears, but do as cheerfully put off my doublet at this time
as ever I did when I went to bed." Then stretching forth his
hands in the midst of his silent prayer as a sign to the
executioner, the axe fell, and his head rolled from the block.
He had attempted to lay his strength against the national
will, which had concentrated itself in one of the most formid
able assemblies that had ever gathered at Westminster. He
might have succeeded in 1629, when Charles was strong
enough to muzzle Parliament and crush its leaders. He
could not possibly succeed in 1641, when Charles was fain
to assent not merely to a Triennial Bill,lbut to a Dissolu
tion Bill, and thus virtually to own that Parliament was
rriaster of the State. Strafford's view of prerogative govern
ment was out of date, while his idea of a military despotism
proved impossible of realisation. Both king and ministers
had, in fact, made mistake after mistake, and succeeded only
in making Parliament irresistible. It had crushed the

324 Reflections on his Doom.
stronger man ; it had deprived the weaker of the means of
ridding himself of its mastery.
It is usual to exalt the ability of Strafford, to predict that
had he lived Charles would have won. Able, brilliantly
able, he undoubtedly was, but I can find no ground for the
assumption that he would have been more than a match for
the Long Parliament. He was, at least, no match for the
Scots. The English army under his leadership had only
earned disgrace and disaster. He proved powerless to pre
vent the king from having to yield to humiliating terms.
England, too, was against Strafford, and Strafford would
doubtless have failed against England. Still, he was
sufficiently dangerous to make his destruction essential in the
eyes of his opponents. But the superlatively able man of
most writers ought not to have been caught and rendered
impotent at the very outset.
SOURCES. — Lords' Journals, iv. ; Commons' Journals, ii.;
State Papers, 1640-41, edited by Hamilton ; Parliamentary
History, ii.; Constitutional History, ix. Much new light has
been thrown on the proceedings of the Long Parliament by
the Diary attributed to Sir Simmonds D'Ewes, the MS. of
which is in the British Museum, Harleian MSS., Nos. 162-166,
and by the Manchester, or Mandeville, Memoirs, also in MS.
(Add. MSS., 15,567), in the British Museum, which have been
copied for me by Miss Steele Hutton, M.A. These papers
were largely drawn on by Mr Sandford in his Studies and
Illustrations of the Great Rebellion (1858), and by Mr
Gardiner in vol. ix. of his History, of England. Mr Gardiner
drew in addition on Moore's Diary, Harleian MSS. Mr
Forster also made use of D'Ewes in The Grand Remon
strance (i860), and The Arrest of the Five Members (i860).
These serve to correct in many material points such
authorities as Rushworth, Nalson, and the Parliamentary
Histories. Sir Ralph Verney was another note-taker, and his
valuable MSS. have been published by Mr Bruce for the
Camden Society, under the title of Notes of Proceedings in
the Long Parliament (1845). Another valuable contemporary
record by a member of the Long Parliament has been pub
lished under the title of The Note-Book of Sir John North-

Sources of Chapter XIV. 325
cote, edited by A. H. A. Hamilton (1877). Unfortunately it
only extends from the middle of November to the end of
December 1640. May, The History of the Parliament of
England which began November 1640 (1647) — a contem
porary account of great value, written in a very dispassionate
tone. Rushworth, Collections, iv., and The Tryal of the Earl
of Strafford (1680); Laud, History of the Troubles, in
Works, iii. ; Nalson, Impartial Collection of the Great
Affairs of State, i. and ii. The author was a zealous
Royalist, who flourished in the reign of James II., and
his work was meant as an antidote to Rushworth. Though
it supplies some additional matter, the author's annotations
are by no means impartial. Scobell, A Collection of Acts
and Ordinances made in the Long Parliament (1655). The
editor was Clerk of the Parliament. For English as well as
Scottish affairs, Baillie (who was in London from the autumn
of 1640 to August 1641) is a most valuable authority,
Letters and Journals, i. ; Hardwicke, State Papers, ii. ; The
Diurnall Occurrences of Both Houses from November 1640-
November 1641 (1641); Whitelocke, Memorials ; Clarendon's
History, i.-iii. Both Whitelocke and Clarendon are to be
used with great caution. Clarendon, in particular, is full of
mistakes and confusions, and is very partial on the Royalist
side. Diary of John Rous (1625-1642), edited by Mrs Green
for Camden Society (1856).

CHAPTER XV.
The Grand Remonstrance and the Attempt on
the Five Members (1641-1642).
The master spirit of Stuart autocracy crushed, the Commons
proceeded to demolish the system which that master spirit,
most of all, embodied in their eyes. They passed Bills
abolishing ship-money, the Star Chamber, and the High
Commission, prohibiting the exaction of knighthood fees,
declaring the limits of the royal forests, and making ton
nage and poundage dependent on Parliamentary grant at
short intervals. To these Bills the Lords gave their hearty
approval, and Charles a reluctant consent. Both Houses
were, too, practically unanimous in adopting ten propositions
drawn up by Pym (24th June), and praying the king, inter
alia, to remove evil councillors and entrust the administra
tion to such as possessed the confidence of Parliament. In
other words, he must admit the responsibility of ministers
to Parliament. In view of the misgovernment of the last
decade, the request was reasonable enough, and Charles
would have consulted his own interest as well as that of
the country in frankly submitting to the inevitable. It had
clearly become impossible to govern a country with a Parlia
mentary constitution on the autocratic principle. Parliament
had already become the dominating force in the nation in
spite of the attempt of James and Charles to assert their high
notions of prerogative, and after the events of the previous year
no king and no minister could afford to ignore the national
will, unequivocally expressed in sweeping Parliamentary
majorities. Parliamentary majorities had come to stay,
whether Charles liked it or not, and so far the Parliamentary
majority was practically the whole Parliament. The minority
in favour of Strafford had been comparatively insignificant,

Further Parliamentary Measures. 327
and all the abuses of arbitrary government had been con
demned with hardly a dissentient voice. Unfortunately,
Charles could not look facts in the face, and refused to admit
or act on the principle which alone could make government
feasible for him or the nation. " His majesty," he bade the
Earl of Bath tell the Lords on the 12th July, "knows of no
ill counsellors, the which he thinks should both satisfy and
be believed, he having granted all hitherto demanded by
Parliament ; nor doth he expect that any should be so un
advised as by slanders or any other ways to deter any that
he trusts in public affairs from giving him free counsel,
especially since freedom of speech is always demanded and
never refused to Parliaments."
So far Lords and Commons were practically unanimous.
Abuses must not only be swept away ; the prerogative must
be limited so as to prevent the possibility of their recurrence.
Unfortunately, it was impossible to attain unanimity on the
ecclesiastical question. A large party in the Commons was
in favour of a drastic measure of reform, even to the extent of
abolishing the Episcopal order ; a considerable minority, while
agreeing to exclude the bishops from the House of Lords,
was determined to retain their jurisdiction in the Church. A
majority of the Lords was not only resolved to retain the
Episcopal jurisdiction, but to preserve their legislative rights
as peers. This majority refused to read the Bishops' Ex
clusion Bill, on which the Commons had agreed, a third time,
and substituted a Bill of their own, which, while pruning away
abuses in the Church, retained the Episcopal office and left
the bishops in possession of their seats in the Upper House.
They refused, too, to pass the Bill making the Protestation
obligatory on the nation as well ¦ as both Houses. The
majority of the Commons, on the other hand, went on
debating into final shape a Root and Branch Bill, which
proposed to abolish Episcopacy, and place the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction in the hands of nine lay commissioners responsible
to Parliament. There was thus friction not only between a
minority and a majority in either House, but between the
Houses themselves. In a revolutionary age it is difficult to
observe the practicable medium, and even in such an ex
perienced assembly as the English Parliament, practical

328 Dissension over Ecclesiastical Legislation,
considerations were not strong enough to carry it over zeal
for theory in ecclesiastical matters. The hatred of Episcopacy
had sunk deep into the more earnest Puritan minds. To
such minds the bishops had since the Reformation, and more
especially in these latter years, been both usurpers of God's
heritage and abettors of a persecuting Government. There
was much in the history of the last three-quarters of a century
of Episcopal history to substantiate their conviction. Many of
the bishops, from Parker to Laud, had acted most tyrannically
towards dissenters, had made use of all the powers of the
High Commission, backed by the crown, to force the Puritan
conscience. The resentment and the zeal of these outraged
Puritans might be natural, but Puritans of this thorough
going type were, after all, in a minority of the nation, and it
was undoubtedly a mistake on the part of this minority to
attempt to revolutionise the Church as well as reform the
State. The attempt really played into the hands of the king
and the bishops by enabling them to form a party in Parlia
ment as well as in the nation. Charles, who still laboured
under the belief that it was more in his interest to be the head
of a party than the leader of a nation, was quick to see his
advantage, and sedulously cultivated the goodwill of the anti-
Root and Branch leaders. He made Digby a peer, and entered
into communication with Hyde. He shared in the renewed,
though futile intrigues of the queen and the court party to
pit the country against the Parliament. Such fancies were
worthy of the man, but there was more feasibility in cultivat
ing the Scottish Commissioners to the same end. The Scots
were, in fact, now his trump card. He would go down to
Scotland, win over the Covenanters, if need be on their own
terms, and with a loyal and enthusiastic Scottish nation at
his back, return to dictate his will in England. "Before I
came from London," wrote Baillie, " his majesty's voyage for
Scotland was resolved ; upon what grounds it is but only
conjectured. My Lord Rothes was become a great courteour.
The queen began to speak honourablie and affectionatelie of
our nation, and in sound earnest to think of her convoying
the king to Scotland. It was thought the heartie agreeance
and fullie satisfieing of our needlesslie irritat land would be
a sovereign help to the continuall harsh rancounters of the

Charles has Recourse to the Scots. 329
English Parliament." Rothes, Loudon, Dunfermline, and
others were the objects of studied kindness. Rothes especi
ally bade fair, according to Baillie, " to be the greatest courtier
either of Scots or English."
In Scotland, as in England, reaction had already begun
to cleave the national party, and Charles could, in fact,
already count on the support of the small section of the
Covenanters who had entered with Montrose into the Bond
of Cumbernauld in opposition to Argyll, and who were ready
to dare all in his cause if he would guarantee the established
religion and the liberties of the land. For these reactionary
tactics Montrose and three of his confederates were summoned
before the Committee of Estates, and warded in Edinburgh
Castle. Charles tried to counteract the ill-effect of this
revelation by disclaiming any knowledge of these intrigues
against Argyll, and he prepared for himself a hearty Scottish
reception by signing on the 7th August the treaty which the
Commissioners of both Parliaments had at last succeeded in
arranging. The treaty bound him to recognise the Bills
passed by the Scottish Estates in June 1640 as valid Acts of
Parliament, to approve the payment of £300,000 by the
English Parliament in discharge of the services of the Scottish
army, to put no impediment in the way of the punishment of
the "incendiaries" or authors of the late troubles by the
Parliament of either kingdom, to employ no persons so
punished in any office of State, and to suppress all proclama
tions and libels against his Scottish subjects. Thus fortified,
be carried out his intention in the face of the strenuous
opposition of the suspicious Commons, who even broke the
Sabbath in their anxiety to prevent his journey, and met to
make a last appeal for delay. He consented to put off his
departure from Monday to Tuesday, and on that Tuesday, the
1 oth of August, started northwards in the secret hope of
ere long returning to regain the mastery he had lost.
Charles rode into Edinburgh on the 14th August amid
every token of hearty welcome. He was determined to make
himself a popular hero, and for a time he succeeded. He
played the Presbyterian in the most devout fashion, and
seemed edified by long sermons, extempore prayers, and
singing of psalms. "The king," noted Baillie, with satis-

33° Charles and the Scottish Parliament.
faction, " hears all duelie, and we hear none of his complaints
for want of a liturgie or any ceremonies." On the 17th, he
attended Parliament, which had begun its session in the pre
vious month, and in his heartiest tones offered to guarantee
the religious and just liberties of his native land. He
announced his readiness to ratify forthwith the Acts of the
Parliament of 1640, in accordance with the terms of the
treaty. In curious contrast to his attitude on the occasion
of his previous visit, he appeared to be precipitate in his
zeal to forestall the demands of the Estates, and they found
it necessary to remind him that it behoved him to wait for
the conventional " order of the House." On the 30th, he was
banqueted in Parliament House, and toasted with brimful
enthusiasm. " Over the whole town," wrote Bere to Pen
nington, " there was nothing but joy and revelling like a day
of jubilee." In spite of all this jubilation and enthusiasm,
the majority of the Estates who followed Argyll insisted on
taking the utmost advantage of their opportunity, and on the
1 6th September passed an Act subjecting all State appoint
ments to the advice and approbation of Parliament. In
accordance therewith, Charles produced a leet of the new
ministers. Argyll took exception to the nomination of
Morton as treasurer. He objected further to the substitu
tion of Almond for Morton. With his Parliamentary majority
at his back the great Campbell thus asserted even more
directly than the leaders of the national assembly at West
minster the right of the Estates to control the administra
tion. With this Parliamentary majority he both overawed
Charles and weathered the plot that his enemies had hatched
to deport or assassinate him, Hamilton, and his brother, the
Earl of Lanark, who had thrown in their lot with the
dominant party. They defeated the design of the plotters
by hastily retiring to Kinneil. Their flight inflamed distrust
of the monarch, and Charles resented it as a slur on his
honour. There was consequently long and irritated debate
on the subject in Parliament House, and in the end Charles
was compelled to yield to the force of Parliamentary feel
ing, and to recognise that he must accept as virtual Prime
Minister the man in whom the nation had placed its con
fidence. " The Incident," as this mysterious affair was called,

Argyll's Supremacy. 33 l
thus brought one more humiliation to the helpless monarch,
who was fain to hush the strife and do as the Estates directed.
"The Parliament continues here still stiff and resolved,"
wrote Secretary Vane to Nicholas (30th October), " and what
ever intelligence you may have had in the South, I do not
find his majesty is likely to have his will here." While he set
Montrose and his fellow-prisoners at liberty, lie made Argyll
a marquess, Hamilton a duke, Leslie an earl, Loudon Chan
cellor as well as earl, and made over the Treasury to four
commissioners, of whom Argyll was the chief. In spite of
this show of magnanimity, he was helpless to do otherwise.
Argyll, not Charles, was for the nonce King of Scotland.
" Since their late danger," notes Baillie, " was the means to
increase their power with the Parliament, so whatever ruling
they had before, it was then multiplied. . . . The leading
men of the barons and boroughs did dailie consult with
Argyll." To the Royalist writers Argyll is a designing rebel, who
was merely scheming for his own hand, in contrast to the
immaculate Montrose. The Covenanters who followed him
had become the mere dupes or abettors of a hypocrite and
a crafty politician, and the struggle was now merely for the
predominance of one man, or a small clique of men. King
Campbejl is a fitting parallel to King Pym. Personally,
Argyll does not appeal to us. He should not have made
the Covenant a pretext for settling old accounts with his
personal enemies in the Athole country. By so doing, he
cast a blot on the cause he espoused. It may be admitted,
too, that he was striving for mastery as against a Montrose.
Montrose also had his eye on office, for the most unselfish and
exalted ends, we are assured by Mr Napier and others, and
between him and Argyll there was all the antipathy of
rivalry. In contrast to his rival, he was an idealist of a
kind — of the fervent monarchist type — while Argyll would
have deposed Charles without the slightest hesitation if he
insisted on setting himself up against the will of the nation.
But the assumption of Montrose's ardent admirers that
Argyll was scheming solely for his own aggrandisement — to
make himself dictator of Scotland, more particularly by
means of the Covenanting movement — is assuredly going too

332 Argyll's Position.
far. Apart from the principles of the party with which he
identified himself, he was nothing. It was because this party
believed in his policy and relied on his ability that he
became the great man of the day. Had the Covenanters
had any ground for believing that he was working merely
for his own hand, they would certainly not have lent
themselves as the mere tools of his ambition. To talk of
the dictator in this invidious sense is to 'use the language
of exaggeration in order to throw discredit on a hateful
cause. We must not forget that Argyll as well as Montrose had
a cause to represent, and that he could not have ignored
this cause in deference to purely selfish ends, even if he
had been desirous to do so. He stood as the champion not
only of Presbyterianism, but of Parliamentary government,
such as the recent history of Scotland as well as England
had shown to be necessary as against an arbitrary king.
Montrose now stood for the royal authority, as conditioned
by " laws and liberties," and regarded Parliamentary govern
ment as equivalent to tyranny. The fear was cherished by
more than Montrose. " If this be what you call liberty,"
said the Earl of Perth, "God send me the old slavery
again." And in view of the intolerant dogmatism of the
Covenanters, Parliamentary government, if it did not con
duce to an Argyll dictatorship in the invidious Royalist
sense, was likely to be hard enough, not only upon the
abettors of Stuart despotism in Church and State, but upon
all who disliked that dogmatism. It is very regrettable that
Argyll and his followers were not enlightened enough to
perceive that government by a Parliamentary majority did
not necessarily involve the crushing of all who differed from
them, or that they were not moderate enough to appreciate
the merits of an opposition. Their excuse may be found in
the fact that " opposition " at such a crisis tended to endanger
the stability of what they had fought for, and might easily,
in view of the intrigues of a malcontent party, pave the way
for a reaction. That Parliament should at all events assert
itself was patent enough from Charles' failure to govern
wisely on both sides of the Border. Those who desire to
discredit the constitutional movement, by denouncing Argyll,

Parties and Principles in English Parliament. 333
find it convenient to forget that it was absolutely necessary
to organise the Parliamentary opposition if Scotland was to
be assured against a renewal of Charles' arbitrary regime.
Such organisation, after all, necessitated a leader, and Argyll
was the ablest man for the post going. Montrose was more
fitted to lead an army than govern a country.
It was some compensation to Charles for this disappoint
ment that party strife had meanwhile become very acute at
Westminster. Divergence of opinion on the ecclesiastical
question had, as we have seen, already cleft both Lords and
Commons into a majority and a minority, and after the re
assembling of the Houses for their second session in October
1641, the cleavage extended to other questions — developed, in
fact, two distinct parties. The men who followed Hyde,
Falkland, and Culpepper in the Commons had become the
staunch supporters of king and Church against the majority
led by Pym and Hampden. Charles could now rely on " a
Royalist party " to support his resistance to further limitation
of his power, if not to help him to undo the unwelcome legis
lation that had secured the approval of the overwhelming
majority of both Houses. It was no longer a question of a
small and variable minority dissenting on some particular
question from a triumphant majority, but of a party with
fixed principles and policy, arrayed in strenuous opposition to
the demands of a revolutionary phalanx. Falkland, indeed,
as reported by Clarendon, frankly avowed to Hampden that
he had changed his opinions. He now resisted the Bill dis
abling the clergy, and particularly the bishops, from exercising
any temporal jurisdiction, which Pym substituted for the
abortive measure of the previous session. " Truly," said he,
in answer to Hampden's reproach that he had given his
support to the previous Bill, " I was persuaded at that time
by the worthy gentleman who hath spoken to believe many
things that I have since found to be untrue ; and therefore I
have changed my opinion in many particulars as well as to
things as persons."
The majority, that remained as suspicious as ever of any
compromise with Charles short of their own terms, naturally
regarded this change of opinion as defection from the Parlia
mentary cause. They suspected treachery, and were inclined

334 Justification of the Opposition.
to rank their opponents among " the evil councillors " whom
men like Falkland and Hyde had formerly joined them in
denouncing. Their interpretation of motives was not likely
to err on the side of magnanimity, and we may be sure that a
man like Falkland was not likely to desert his former associates
from unworthy considerations. Even Hyde, who was far
more of a politician than his nobler associate, was not neces
sarily an opportunist in electing henceforth to stand by the
royal as against the Parliamentary cause. The fear of
anarchy in the Church as well as the State impelled men
like Falkland to refrain from continuing an opposition which
seemed to menace the old constitution. Hyde's love of order,
as well as his ambition to play a dominant r61e, inclined him
in the sarne direction. There was room for hesitation as to
the expediency of further encroachment on the royal authority.
The climax towards which the Parliamentary majority was
leading — a nominal king, an omnipotent Parliament — was
an innovation sufficient to appal the imagination of the con
servative, law-abiding Englishman. Only absolute necessity,
or what was conceived to be absolute necessity, would carry
even many of Pym's followers to the length of virtually estab
lishing a republic with a mere royal figure-head.
Moreover, on this burning ecclesiastical question in par
ticular, Pym and his uncompromising Puritan followers were
altogether too rigid, too doctrinaire. They wished to make
England uncompromisingly Puritan, whether England would
or not. They persisted in identifying Laudian High Churchism
with Popery in spite of the most positive disclaimers of their
opponents. They pressed their anti-Episcopal legislation as
if it were completely in accord with the national feeling. In
reality they represented, in their religious opinions and aspira
tions, only a section of Englishmen, and they persisted in mis
taking a section of the nation for the nation itself. They
made no allowance for Charles' passionate adherence to the
Episcopal system. " I hear," wrote he to Nicholas from Scot
land on the 1 8th October, "it is reported at my return I intend
to alter the government of the Church of England, and to
bring it to that form as it is here. Therefore I command
you to assure all my servants that I am constant to the dis
cipline and doctrine of the Church of England established by

Puritans Mistake Party for Nation. 335
Queen Elizabeth and my father, and that I resolve by the
grace of God to die in the maintenance of it." In such utter
ances Charles used the language of absolute conviction. This
was one of the things as to which prevarication was to him
impossible, one of the things for which he was consistently to
fight and die, and he expressed not only his own, but very
probably the sentiment of the majority of his subjects. By
ignoring it Pym and his followers did their best to create that
Royalist party which they denounced as traitors both to the
Parliament and the nation. They forgot that in such circum
stances it is the business of the statesman to tolerate and com
promise, and to this kind of statesmanship Pym, with his
eternal declamation against all that was not ardently Puritan
as Popery, could lay no claim. It would be an egregious
mistake to regard his Parliamentary majority as the charhpions
of toleration against the High Church persecutors of the
Puritans, though that majority happily counted a few, of whom
Cromwell was to be the brilliant mouthpiece, who managed to
combine with hatred of Episcopacy a certain appreciation of
religious liberty. In this matter Pym and the greater number
of his associates were by no means in advance of their time,
and, in palliation of their narrow dogmatism, it must be said
that neither their age, nor their experience, nor the situation in
which they were placed was fitted to teach them in this matter
the charity that thinketh no evil.
Other causes helped to make the split inevitable. The
members of a large assembly do not consort for many months
in great legislative reforms without collision of principle or
prejudice. Difference of mind and character comes into play.
Personal enmities divide ; rival ambitions estrange the workers
in a common cause. To the more timid or cautious there
comes sooner or later the disquieting doubt whether experi
mental legislation has not gone far enough. Above all, in this
case there was the reactionary conviction that it was more
advisable to try the effect of a policy of conciliation and com
promise towards the king than to proceed further on one
based on distrust and antagonism. Henceforth the appeal
to eschew friction with Charles, to spare his feelings, to strive
to carry him with them, was the panacea of the minority
that owned the leadership of Falkland, Hyde, and Culpepper.

336" Impossibility of Policy of Halt.
The minority refuse to believe in the sinister rumours of
repression that goaded men like Pym and Hampden ever
further on the road to revolution. Hyde and Falkland,
apropos of the news of the attempt to overthrow Argyll in
Scotland, made light of the inference of a similar design
against their associates at Westminster. The alarm of the
majority would not thus easily be conjured, and the majority
insisted on having a guard of the trained bands of Westminster
to keep watch over the Parliament day and night.
It would have been better for both Parliament and king
to rest where they were — Charles to submit to what Parlia
ment had enacted, Parliament to remain content with the
guarantees of constitutional government thus enacted. Un
fortunately, the conditions were not favourable to a policy
of halt. In spite of public professions Charles could not
bring himself to frankly accept the situation which his abor
tive attempt at arbitrary government had created. He was
working hard to bring about a Royalist reaction ; he was
eager for vengeance on his victors. And if Charles would
not resign himself to the situation, it is patent that the Parlia
ment could not afford to ignore his intrigues to its detriment.
An attitude of vigilant suspicion was the only possible one
for the great Commoner and those who followed him. It
was because of their fear of a forcible reaction that both
parties had voted the Dissolution Bill, in addition to the
measures that knocked away one after another the props of
autocratic government. And this distrust of the king and
his "evil councillors" continues to afford the key to the
successive measures by which Pym, Hampden, Cromwell, and
others carried the majority steadily with them from the arena
of Parliamentary strife to the battlefield.
Was this haunting fear that impelled the majority in the
path of revolutionary legislation groundless, or well founded ?
This is the important question. On the answer to it will
depend the justification or the condemnation of the measures
over which party strife raged so fiercely in the Commons
after the reassembling of the House in October 1641. If
Pym, Hampden, and their associates unjustly suspected
Charles of a design to crush them and restore the balance
in his favour, then their systematic attempts to checkmate him

What were the Facts? 337
by such devices as the Grand Remonstrance and the Militia
Bill were nothing less than criminal attempts to drive him to
desperation and launch the country into civil war. This was
the view of the Royalist party, and Hyde, in his " History of
the Rebellion," strives to place the motives of his opponents in
the worst light, as those of an unreasonable, self-seeking,
opinionated, and treacherous faction, who made use of Parlia
ment to defy the king and enforce their own supremacy. He
forgot that the wrongs of the previous decade and a half had
sunk so deeply into the minds of men like Pym,. that the
indispensable thing with them was to prevent at all hazards
their recurrence. Not only so ; but it must not be forgotten
that we do not know all that Pym knew of those secret
currents of action which are not marked on the chart of
history. He could not always speak out all that he knew ;
he could only hint it and leave his listeners to read between
the lines. If, for instance, he knew, as he evidently did, of
damning intrigues in the highest places, he could not bluntly
say so in support of his tactics in bringing in the Grand
Remonstrance. If, on the other hand, the suspicion of men like Pym of
a forcible Royalist reaction, and the evidence they indicated
or adduced in support of it were well founded, they were
acting the part of true patriots in taking every possible pre
caution to safeguard the rights of the nation as well as their
own persons from an attack that must have proved fatal to
both. This is the view that, in spite of Hyde, Lord Clarendon,
is substantially borne out by the facts. What were the facts ?
In the spring of 1641 the eagle-eyed Pym had lighted on two
army plots to rescue Strafford and overawe the Parliament.
Charles was an accomplice of the plotters, and both he and
his queen and courtiers were busy intriguing reaction in
other directions. Their intrigues continued throughout the
summer and culminated in the expedition to rally the Scots
against their late associates. The refusal to abandon or post
pone the Scottish visit deepened the suspicion and intensified
the alertness of the watchful Pymites, and the abortive Incident
at once started the inference that the stroke that was to have
overwhelmed Argyll was part of a similar design against
Argyll's associates at Westminster. Charles' correspondence
VOL. III. Y

338 Distrust of Charles and its Justification.
with Secretary Nicholas proves beyond dispute that he was
but biding his time and preparing the coming retribution.
The Incident might end in fiasco, but were there not mal
contents in plenty at Westminster itself to fall back on?
These malcontents had now rallied into a Royalist phalanx,
and were prepared to play into the king's hands against the
majority. Then came the news of the Irish rebellion, and
here again the popular leaders saw the insidious hand of the
plotter not merely against the Protestants across the Irish
Sea, but against the English Parliament itself. The rebellious
Irish made, in fact, no secret of their determination to break
the yoke of the English Parliament not only in Ireland, but
in England, to vindicate the royal authority against the faction
at Westminster which had usurped it. And Charles was not
free from the guilt of complicity with this terrible explosion
of race and religious hatred which, beginning in the end of
October, eventuated in such horrible outrages during the
months of November and December. He certainly did not
plot the wholesale massacre of the hapless English and
Scottish settlers, whom the savage hordes that followed an
O'Neil did to death with a ferocity born of centuries of
oppression and race hatred. The native Irish had wrongs
enough to rectify. Wholesale eviction had long been the
expedient for providing settlements for English and Scottish
colonists. Poverty and starvation had been the lot of the
Irish outcast in order that these Protestant intruders might
carry on the work of anglification and at the same time live
on the fat of the land. They were, moreover, oppressed in
their souls as well as their bodies, and a monopoly of religious
toleration, as well as of the land, was guaranteed to a small
Protestant minority, of mostly alien race. Here was a case
for reform more clamant than ship-money or other abuse of
arbitrary government in England, and Charles deserves no
reprehension for lending his ear to Irish complaints or seek
ing to redress them. But his chief solicitude was to make
capital out of Irish grievances in his struggle with the
English Parliament. To this end he had done his utmost
to prevent the disbandment of the Irish Catholic army and
had entered into communication with the disaffected Irish
lords, one of whom, Dillon, haunted his court at Holyrood, and

Convictions of Pym and Majority. 339
to whose secret " Covenant " Ormonde was, according to the
"Contemporary History of Affairs in Ireland" (1641-52), a
party. He saw in the uprising which these lords engineered,
and of which he evidently knew more than historians have
usually given him credit for, the means of reducing the
English Parliament to impotence and bringing its refractory
members to book. His attitude towards the insurrectionary
Irish could not, therefore, fail to bring him into collision with
Pym and his followers.
There was 'thus ample ground for the irrefragable con
viction of a Pym that Charles was merely temporising in
all his public professions of sincerity and respect towards
the Parliament, and that he was himself plotting its destruc
tion and giving ear to the many plotters in high places
who were working, towards the same end. It was a mere
euphemism that the majority still professed to lay the blame
on "ill councillors." Ill councillors were not wanting to
intrigue and decry, and among these Pym now evidently
reckoned the Royalist minority as well as some of the ministers,
the queen's creatures, and the bishops. The obvious fact was
that they had lost all confidence in the king himself, and that
Charles' thinly veiled hostility only too surely confirmed their
distrust. Instead of honestly trying to disarm this distrust,
he tried to divide Parliament. Divide in order to rule was
his maxim. He certainly succeeded in creating a Royalist
party, but his success only quickened the suspicion of the
majority, and in the end division only told against himself.
This distrust, then, is the grand factor of the legislation
of the next six months — legislation which forms the prologue
to the drama of the Civil War. It had already begotten the
Dissolution Bill and the Triennial Bill. In the eyes of the
majority the Grand Remonstrance, the Militia Bill, the De
claration of the Supremacy of Parliament were the indispens
able corollaries of the Triennial and the Dissolution Bills.
It first found decisive expression during the debates on the
Irish rebellion. The Commons, indeed, voted £50,000 forth
with, agreed to raise an army of 8,000 men for service in
Ireland, and accepted the offer of the Scottish Parliament
to despatch a force thither at their charges. But Pym had
a sine qua non Jri reservation. Parliament could not entrust

34° Majority's Ultimatum to Charles.
his majesty with such a force unless he would unreservedly
eschew " evil councillors " and undertake to employ only such
as both Houses could confide in. Otherwise, such was the
startling conclusion, Parliament would hold itself absolved
from the obligation to levy a man or spend a shilling to
restore order in Ireland (5th November). " Well moved,"
" Well moved," shouted a chorus of approving voices. There
were counter-shouts of protest, however, and one indignant
member, Edmund Waller, Hampden's cousin, rose to demand
what was the difference between Strafford's counsel that the
king in a certain contingency was absolved from all rules
of government by the opposition of Parliament, and Pym's
contention that Parliament in this emergency was free of
all obligation to assist his majesty unless its conditions
were complied with. Pym vigorously rebutted the com
parison and Waller had to apologise at the bar for thus
maliciously misinterpreting the bearing of his contention.
But the majority was not prepared to carry its distrust of
the king to the length of leaving Ireland to its fate, and
Pym was subsequently forced to modify his resolution (8th
November). In its final form the determination to safeguard
themselves from possible treachery was none the less patent.
The pernicious influence of evil councillors was assumed as
a fact too evident to need particularisation. " Whilst we have
been labouring to support his majesty to purge out the cor
ruptions and restore the decays of Church and State, others
of their faction and party have been contriving by violence
and force to suppress the liberty of Parliament and endanger
the safety of those who have opposed such wicked and perni
cious courses." The responsibility for the Irish rebellion was
traced to the same sinister source. How, then, could Parlia
ment tax the subject to crush a rebellion for which his
majesty's occult advisers were plainly responsible, and which
was merely a device for enabling them to strike at the religion
and liberties of England itself? His majesty must, therefore,
turn these mischief makers adrift and " employ such counsels
and ministers as shall be approved by his Parliament." There
must be no trifling on this point, and what followed was in the
nature of an ultimatum. If his majesty should turn a deaf
ear to their request, then " we shall be forced, in discharge of

Origin of Grand Remonstrance. 34 *
the trust which we owe to the State and to those whom we
represent, to resolve upon some such way of defending Ireland
from the rebels as may concur to the securing of ourselves
from such mischievous counsels and designs as have lately
been, and still are, in practice against us, as we have just cause
to believe." There was substantial truth as well as exaggeration in
Pym's assumptions, and for the ultimatum as thus worded he
had now a majority of fully forty. The majority of the Lords
refused at a conference to be swayed by his arguments into
compliance, and would not join in adding it to the instructions
to be sent to the Parliament's Commissioners in Scotland
for presentation to the king. It was certain that Charles
would hotly resent this plain speaking.
Undaunted, Pym and his followers determined to appeal
from both king and Lords to the nation. They brought in
that Remonstrance which had been mooted more than once
before, and which was now, in plain, succinct English, to
inform Charles in particular, and the nation in general, that in
the opinion of the majority of the Commons the past sixteen
years of government had been one tissue of tyranny arid
wrong. Much of its contents had already been uttered in
speeches and petitions, but all that had been thus spoken or
written in denunciation of the methods and deeds of auto
cracy was now gathered up in a crushing, blasting digest,
couched in plain, concise terms, which the dullest might
understand. It was, in fact, an epitome of the accumulated
abuses of the reign, from the Oxford dissolution right on to
the latest army plot, which had driven even the most patient
and loyal to cry out for retribution and reform. Nothing
escaped the piercing rays of Pym's flaming searchlight, and
in its lurid glare the nation was bidden to look into a very
inferno of misgovernment. Some of the objects might be
distorted ; there was enough, and more than enough, of
realistic presentation in the grim outlines of things thus
flashed into the full gaze of the nation. " The root of all this
mischief," the remonstrants informed the nation, in the
preamble, lay in " a malignant and pernicious" design of sub
verting the fundamental laws and principles of government
upon which the religion and justice of this kingdom are

342 Contents of Remonstrance.
firmly established." " Jesuited " Papists, High Church bishops
and clergymen, certain councillors and courtiers had, con
tinued the preamble, conspired to this end by exciting
antagonism between king and people on questions of preroga
tive and liberty, had fermented strife and persecution in the
Church and done infinite harm to true religion,, had slandered
Parliaments in order to alienate the king from constitutional
government, and had taught him to exact arbitrary taxes. A
little more discrimination in dealing with these accusations
would certainly have strengthened the case of the remon
strants in unimpassioned minds, but in regard to many of the
facts of misgovernment, which they proceeded to pile up, there
could not be two opinions. These facts they marshalled in
short, crisp paragraphs, to the number of about ioo out of a
total of 204. The remaining 104, generally speaking, detailed
the remedial legislation of the Long Parliament, rebutted the
slanders and aspersions of its hostile critics, denied that it had
diminished the just rights of the crown in vindicating those of
the nation, denounced the plots against it, vindicated its
ecclesiastical policy as necessary in the interest of reform,
disclaimed any intention of introducing in matters religious
any liberty of conscience not sanctioned by the laws, demanded
the severe repression of Papists and the convocation of an
assembly of divines to reform abuses in the Church with the
sanction of Parliament, and finally postulated responsible
ministers as the only means of making Government workable
for the future.
It is easy for the modern critic to pick holes in some of
these paragraphs, especially those concerned with religion.
Their intolerance and misrepresentation repel us. Pym and
the narrow Puritans evidently had Popery on the brain, and
it was not difficult for men like Sir Edward Deering to rebut
the wholesale charge of idolatry against the bishops as an
egregious exaggeration. But the significance of the Remon
strance did not consist in wild assertions of this kihd, did
not, in truth, lie in the facts which it passed under review.
It made no new revelation. What invests it with superlative
historic importance and interest is the idea that underlies it
and the effect it was fitted to produce. " This Remonstrance,"
cried Deering, in the exordium of a hotly hostile speech,

Its Historic Importance. 343
"whensoever it passeth will make such an impression and
leave such a character behind, both of his majesty, the people,
the Parliament, and of the present Church and State, as no
time shall ever eat it out, whilst histories are written and men
have eyes to read them." What appalled the speaker and
what was startlingly new in Parliamentary annals was the
audacious determination of its authors to appeal straight to
the people, to tear away the veil of secrecy from the proceed
ings of Parliament, and carry the debate out of doors into the
full glare of publicity, to challenge the popular judgment as
to the pros and cons of this constitutional struggle, and thus
to make a bold bid for popular support, to pit the nation
against the throne in support of the majority of its representa
tives. It was this unheard of and astute departure in Par
liamentary tactics that angered as well as appalled the
opposition. " Mr Speaker," continued the aghast Deering,
" when I first heard of a Remonstrance,, I presently imagined
that like faithful counsellors we should hold up a glass unto
his majesty. I thought to represent unto the king the wicked
counsel of pernicious counsellors, the restless turbulency of
practical Papists, the treachery of false judges, the bold
innovations and some superstition brought in by some prag
matical bishops and the rotten part of the clergy. I did not
dream that we should remonstrate downward, tell stories to
the people, and talk of the king as of a third person. The
use and end of such a Remonstrance I understand not ; at
least I hope I do not." The idea of consulting the Vox
Populi on legislation pending in Parliament, of addressing the
man in the street, of seeking to make party capital by means
of manifestoes, platform campaigns, grand party demonstra
tions, so familiar to us, was to these angry Royalist orators
nothing less than a revolution. It certainly was a new
departure, and it might easily in the circumstances open the
floodgates of revolution. But if Pym and his followers dis
trusted the king, they had no distrust of the nation, and in
their action on this occasion we may perceive the first glimmer
of a conviction that after all, not the king, not even the
Parliament, but the people, is the supreme authority in such
momentous political controversies. The king must not
merely submit to be deprived of his right to dissolve Parlia-

344 Angry Debates in the Commons.
ment indefinitely, and thus burke unwelcome discussion within
the walls of Westminster ; he must submit to have his
actions, as well as those of Parliament, reviewed by the nation
at large. To the king this was maddening. "You must
needs speak with such of my servants as you may best trust,
in my name," wrote he urgently to Nicholas on hearing of the
Remonstrance, "that by all means possible the Declaration
may be stopped." "Command the Lord Keeper in my
name," he further urged on being erroneously informed that it
was to be sent to the Lords, " that he warn all my servants
to oppose it in the Lords' House." To his Royalist followers
it was intolerable, and during the debates from the 9th to the
early morning of the 23rd November they argued and de
claimed against it with the passion of despair. " What ingrati
tude thus to requite his majesty for all his concessions," cried
Hyde on the 19th November. " It is, nevertheless, necessary,"
calmly replied Pym, in effect, " if these concessions are to be
worth the paper they are written on. In a question in which
the rights of the subject are at stake, it is highly expedient that
the subject should be rightly informed what his representatives
have really done on his behalf, and that these representatives
should be vindicated from the dangerous calumnies of malig
nant persons."
The supreme effort came on the 22nd November, the day
when the final vote was to be taken. From mid-day right
on till two o'clock next morning the orators pro and contra
vied with one another in vehemence, and, in the closing
stage, even in violence. Hyde, Falkland, Deering, Culpepper,
Bridgman, Waller, Bagshaw, exhausted the possibilities of
both argument and invective in this final onslaught. Rud
yard, Pym, Hampden, Holies, Glyn, Maynard, urged, refuted,
appealed on its behalf in their strongest manner. Politician
Hyde was not against a Remonstrance in itself, but he could
not see the propriety of raking up the history of a whole
reign and exposing the king. Let them spare his majesty.
Impassioned Falkland insisted on the danger of rousing re
volutionary passions, and contradicted himself in striving to
defend the bishops from the aspersion of Popery. Let them
make laws, not remonstrances, and respect the king's un
doubted right to choose his ministers. Aristocratic Deering,

Arguments Pro and Contra. 345
from whose speech we have already quoted, turned pale at
the thought of popular interference in legislation. " I neither
look for cure of our complaints from the common people, nor
do desire to be cured by them." For the rest he supported
Falkland in his defence of the bishops. Hot-tempered
Culpepper deemed that remonstrance of this kind was as
dangerous as it was unnecessary, and strenuously denied
that their writs of election warranted such a departure from
constitutional usage. They were called there to treat with
the king and the Lords and with nobody else concerning the
affairs of the nation. He was corroborated by the legal
Bridgman, who held that the House of Commons could not
thus remonstrate or declare without the co-operation of the
House of Lords.
There was force in some of these contentions from the
theoretic point of view, but to Pym and his fellow-remon
strants it was a question of practical necessity, not of legal
or other propriety, though they would not admit that there
was anything in the constitution to prevent them from follow
ing the course they had chosen. There was no other ex
pedient left them in the circumstances, and to men who
believed that Protestantism was in danger of being swamped
by Popery and Parliament by plots, it was time to speak out
plainly and act as circumstances required. . Though Pym
was no safe exponent of what constituted Popery, he saw
clearly enough what was needed to assure the cause he
championed from shipwreck. " The honour of the king lies
in the safety of the people, and we must tell the truth.
The plots have been very near the king — all driven home
to the court and the Popish party. . . . We have suffered so
much by counsellors of the king's choosing that we desire
him to advise with us about it, and many of his servants
move him about them, and why may not Parliament ? . . . This
Declaration will bend the people's hearts to us when they see
how we have been used."
Candles had long been lighted and midnight had rung
out; yet three-fourths of the members kept their places in
expectation of the fateful division. It was very close.
There were 159 ayes to 148 noes in response to the Speaker's
question whether this Declaration do now pass. The

346 Violent Midnight Scene.
majority was only eleven (159 to 148). Anon Mr Peard rose
to move that it be printed. The motion promptly brought
Hyde to his feet to ask leave to protest. His request was
refused. Then the pent-up passion of the minority burst like
a whirlwind over the House. The signal for the outburst
was given by Mr Palmer, who jumped up to claim the right
to protest in defiance of regulations. A roar of confused
voices clamouring that the clerk should record their protest
mingled their cries with his. " All," " All," resounded from
the opposition benches, and Palmer, thus emboldened, de
fiantly thundered out that he protested in the name of him
self and all the rest. Some waved their hats ; others seized
the porrimels of their swords, and only the intervention of the
imperturbable Hampden saved their frenzied owners from
fighting it out on the spot. " I thought," said an eyewitness,
" that like Abner and Joab we had all sat in the valley of the
shadow of death." Addressing Palmer, Hampden drily asked
him how he could know other men's minds. Whilst Palmer
was explaining, his fellow-protesters had time to come to
themselves, and the tempest died away in the adoption of
a resolution that the Remonstrance should not be printed
till further order of the House. At a subsequent sitting,
however, Palmer was sent to the Tower for his defiant
conduct. Hitherto the Commons had in the main kept within the
limits of the traditional constitution, had been content to act
in accordance with precedent as quoted by men like Coke,
Selden, D'Ewes, to measure their aspirations by the standard
of the past. In this Remonstrance the majority took a bold
leap into the region of experiment, ventured to accommodate
themselves to new conditions. The direct appeal to the
people to rally to the side of that majority against a re
actionary party, against even the king, reveals a new and
ominous tendency to emancipate Parliament from that con
servative adherence to the past which to men like Coke,
Selden, D'Ewes was as binding as the Ten Commandments.
How startling the step must have seemed even to the majority
of the members themselves will appear when we bear in mind
how jealous the House had hitherto shown itself of publicity.
It resented any attempt even of its own members to take

A Startling Departure. 347
notes of speeches or publish their own speeches without
leave, or write up a diary of proceedings, and frequently
interfered to suppress it. Its Journal is a mere matter-of-fact
jumble of perfunctory notes, and Rushworth, the. assistant
clerk, was ordered to refrain from enlarging beyond the tradi
tional limit of the scrappiest outline of debates. To take the
public into its confidence in this direct fashion was to outrage
tradition with a vengeance. The events of the past six
months had forced the majority to think of new expedients,
to advance new claims. To men to whom victory or destruc
tion seemed the only alternatives, the past was not the only
criterion of the present. The grim earnestness which im
pelled them forward is well expressed in the words imputed
by Clarendon to Cromwell. "If," said he to Falkland, on
leaving the House, " the Remonstrance had been rejected,
I would have sold all I had the next morning, and never
have seen England again ; and I know there are many other
honest men of this resolution." The Royalists, on the other
hand, could not conceal their dismay. " It (the Remonstrance)
is the fear of many wise and well-wishing men," wrote Bere
to Pennington, " who apprehend great distempers."
Two days after the passing of the Remonstrance, Charles
arrived from Scotland and was magnificently welcomed by a
Royalist Lord Mayor and his Royalist fellow-aldermen. Peal
ing bells and blazing bonfires to order testified to the joy of
the capital, and Charles, by his hearty assurances on the score
of religion and constitutional rights in general, and the pros
perity of London in particular, undoubtedly roused a con
siderable amount of enthusiasm in his gorgeous progress to
the Guildhall. " This I will do, if need be, at the hazard of
my life, and all that is dear to me." " All the way his
majesty rode were infinite acclamations of joy," notes the
reporter (Rushworth). No wonder that Charles imagined
that he could now pit the capital against the Parliament.
" I see," said he, " that all these tumults and disorders have
only arisen from the meaner sort of the people, and that the
affections of the better and main part of the city have ever
been loyal and affectionate to my person and government."
The Parliamentary majority, then, it seemed, had only a
rabble of apprentices, a howling Puritan mob, to appeal to.

348 Charles' Return — Fear of Treachery.
All the wealth and respectability of the capital, and pre
sumably of the country, were Royalist. Such an assumption
did not bode well for the hope that Charles might even yet
listen to the overtures of that majority. Friction was in fact
immediately apparent. Sure of the capital, he abruptly dis
missed the guard which both Houses, in the midst of the
scare aroused by the Incident, had kept on duty day and
night at Westminster. His presence, he said,^was sufficient
protection to his subjects. Such an action was capable of
the worst interpretation, and did not tend to lessen the dis
trust of Pym and his followers. Even the Lords were per
suaded to join in a petition for the continuance of the guard,
until at least the Commons had time to present to his majesty
the reasons for its necessity. Charles reluctantly consented
and appointed a guard under the Earl of Dorset. The
majority, however, insisted on having their own guard and
adduced anew the old charge of a design to suppress the
Parliament in support of their contention. " To have it under
the command of any other not chosen by themselves, they
can by no means consent to, and will rather run any hazard
than admit of a precedent so hazardous both to this and
future Parliaments."
The old fear of treachery had thus returned with Charles
to make it impossible for king and majority to work
together. And this fear, in spite of the popular acclama
tions that had gladdened Charles, was as strong in the city
as in the Parliament. A crowd of citizens rushed down on
the 29th November armed with swords and sticks to
threaten both Dorset's soldiers and obnoxious Royalist mem
bers. " Since the king's coming," wrote Captain Slyngesbie
to Pennington (2nd December), "all things have not hap
pened so much to his contentment as by his magnificent
entertainment was expected."
Charles was forced to acquiesce and leave the Commons
to assure their own safety. Still the excitement would not
be allayed. While the majority decried the designs against
the Parliament, the minority reclaimed against the intimida
tion of the mob, and complained that Parliament was not
free. On the 2nd December, Charles himself intervened in
these recriminations in a speech to both Houses. He ex-

News from Ireland Intensifies the Fear. 349
pressed his astonishment and disappointment to find on
his return that his concessions had borne so little fruit, and
that so many of his subjects had allowed themselves to be
" disturbed with jealousies, frights, and alarms of dangerous
designs and plots." Such fears were absolutely groundless.
"Far from repenting me of any act I have done in this
session, for the good of my people, I protest that if I were
to do it again, I would do it, and will yet grant what else can
be justly desired for satisfaction in point of liberties, or in
maintenance of the true religion that is here established."
Let them trust him, and make haste to provide means to
suppress the rebellion in Ireland. These assurances were
positive enough, and he had seemed the day before, when a
deputation from the Commons presented the Remonstrance,
with an additional petition, to take its contents in good
part. But it is exceedingly doubtful whether he meant all
he said, and Pym knew too much of the secret conclaves of
the past six months to take him implicitly at his word. The
air both inside and outside Parliament was too surcharged
with the electricity of cross-purposes for such an incanta
tion to spirit away suspicion and passion. How, for instance,
reconcile the royal assurances of innocency and goodwill
with the news from Ireland, that once more, at this critical
moment, sent a thrill of indignation and apprehension
through the ranks of the majority of the Commons? Sir
Phelim O'Neil, who had taken Armagh (such was the news),
had produced a commission from Charles, under the broad
seal of England itself (subsequently found to be that of
Scotland), authorising him to rise on behalf of the king
against the Irish Protestants. Reflection might have sug
gested that this must be a forgery, and that Charles was
hardly fool enough to be guilty of such rashness. But
it is by no means absolutely certain that the thing was
merely an audacious device on O'Neil's part to gain recruits,
and Miss Hickson has at least shown that Dean Kerr's deposi
tion, that O'Neil confessed the forgery on the scaffold, which
has been held sufficient to exculpate Charles, is unworthy
of credence. Both Ormonde and Charles were more deeply
mixed up with the intrigues of the rebels than has generally
been supposed. And if reflection might suggest forgery, it

35° Impressment and Militia Bills.
might also suggest that there must have been some secret
intrigues at the bottom of so startling a proceeding, and,
what seems to have been the case, that Charles had gone so
far as to countenance an Irish rising as a diversion against
the English Parliament, if not as a means of extirpating
English Protestants in Ireland. Whichever reflection pre
vailed, the impression produced was certain to be disastrous
to the royal assurances in the minds of the majority.
According to the rebels' Remonstrance itself, the rising was
a movement on behalf of the king against the English Parlia
ment, as well as on behalf of religious and national rights,
and this fact alone was, in the circumstances, fitted to confirm
suspicion of Charles' complicity.
The quarrel about the guard now sank into insignificance
in view of the far larger question of the command of the
army itself. If Charles was to indulge in such treacherous
designs, the sooner the right to raise an army or exercise
supreme command over it was taken from him the better.
Thus argued Pym and his majority. Hence the Impress
ment Bill, which, while ordering the compulsory impressment
of soldiers for service in Ireland, disallowed the king's right
to press soldiers for service beyond the limits of their
counties, except in case of a foreign invasion, and made
the impressment in question dependent on the authority of
Parliament. Hence, . too, the Militia Bill, which proposed
to confer the supreme command of the militia and the
navy respectively, on a Lord General and a Lord Admiral
nominated by Parliament. The majority of the Commons
were too absorbed with the task of vindicating their own
rights and guaranteeing their own safety, too narrow and
too angry to entertain the demand of the Irish Catholics
for toleration. They demanded the suppression of Popery in
Ireland as well as England, and they succeeded in securing
the support of the Lords to a declaration to this effect.
They had nothing but vengeance and repression for the Irish
rebels, though so sensitive to their own interests, and whatever
the king should plot or profess, they were determined that
he should henceforth have not a vestige of power to use any
force either in Ireland or England, except on their terms.
They would send an army to Ireland, but it would be an

Charles Vainly Intervenes. 35 I
army which would do their will, not the king's, and could not
possibly be turned against themselves. Charles tried to
propitiate this intolerant spirit by a proclamation requiring
obedience to the religion of the Church of England as estab
lished by law (ioth December). He offered, in a second
speech to the assembled Houses (14th December), to accept
the Impressment Bill, with a salvo jure saving the rights of
king and people until these could be further agreed on.
He was answered in a plainly worded petition from both
Houses that he had no right to interfere in the debates on
any Bill under discussion, and that he should abstain from
such interference in future. The majority of the Lords,
nevertheless, demurred to the Impressment Bill, and would
have nothing to say to the Militia Bill. Along with the
minority of the Commons they were still staunch in their
determination to resist legislation of such revolutionary
import. They might resent undue royal interference ; they
were not prepared to place Parliament on the throne at the
bidding of a strenuous party in the Lower House.
To Charles it was now evident that this party must be
crushed, if he and not Pym were to be master of the situation.
He made up his mind to deal the blow which he had long
meditated, but for the execution of which both the oppor
tunity and the resolution had hitherto alike failed him. He
superseded Balfour as Lieutenant of the Tower by Lunsford,
in order to be able to overawe the city (22nd December).
On the following day he gave an angry answer to the
Remonstrance, which in defiance of his express wish the
Commons, by a majority of 135 to 83, had resolved to print
forthwith on the 15th. He would not surrender the bishops,
nor would he submit to Parliamentary control in the choice
of his ministers. He knew nothing of plotters and evil
councillors, and declared his conviction " that no Church can
be found upon the earth that professeth the true religion
with more purity of doctrine than the Church of England
doth, nor where the government and discipline are jointly
more beautified and free from superstition." He strove to
counteract the effect of the Remonstrance, by publishing a
counter-declaration to the nation, rebutting its accusations
and appealing to the loyalty and affection of his subjects.

352 Charles' Maladroit Tactics.
There is no reason to question his profession of " upright
intentions and endeavours for the peace and happiness of
the kingdom." He really wished to do his best for the
nation, but he was not the man to adapt himself to changed
conditions, and it was not true that he had granted all the
reforms demanded by Parliament of his own free resolution
and was only desirous to see them carried out for the general
good. There was in fact a double personality in Charles I. —
the would-be constitutional ruler, who in such public declara
tions had abandoned all thought of autocratic government,
and the secret reactionary, who, in his private utterances, was
repining under the Parliamentary yoke and was eager to cast
it off. The appointment of a desperado like Lunsford frustrated
any chance of rallying the capital against the Parliament.
The Common Council at once protested and appealed to the
Commons. Even the minority felt that Charles had gone too
far, and joined the majority in petitioning for his dismissal.
The majority of the Lords, however, refused to co-operate on
the plea that they could not interfere with the exercise of the
prerogative in this matter. The Commons, in reply, empha
sised, in a Declaration, the urgency of the danger of the
kingdom as well as the capital, disclaimed responsibility for
" the blood which is like to be spilt and the confusions which
may overwhelm this State if this person is continued in his
charge," and appealed to the minority of the Lords to co
operate. Still the majority remained passive whilst the
excitement in the city rose to fever heat. The mob
threatened to storm the Tower, and Charles, yielding to the
entreaties of the Lord Mayor, who hurried to Whitehall to
represent the danger of a popular outburst, was fain to sub
stitute Byron for Lunsford (26th December). The concession
came too late to dispel the gathering storm of popular passion.
On the following day a crowd surged in front of Westminster
Hall crying " No bishops," " No Popish lords," in support of
a petition against Episcopacy and Popery presented to the
Commons some days before. Anon, Williams, now Arch
bishop of York, appeared on the scene. Irritated by the
clamour, he seized one of the rioters. The crowd immediately
rescued him, and roughly handled the archbishop. Williams

The London Mob Demonstrates. 353
found a defender in a disbanded soldier, who drew his sword
and swore that he would cut the throats of those Round-
headed dogs who bawled against bishops. " This passionate
expression," adds Rushworth, "as far as I could ever learn,
was the first minting of that term of Roundheads which after
wards grew so general." The scuffle outside was continued
in Westminster Hall itself, where the rioters ran amuck of the
obnoxious Lunsford and a party of officers, who drew their
swords and hunted therti into the street with some effusion of
blood. The news of the fray brought more rioters on the
scene. These forced their assailants in turn into flight, and
kept up the demonstration for several hours in front of the
Parliament Houses. The appeal to the people had brought a
different response from what Charles bargained for. " I pray
God," wrote Under-Secretary Bere to Admiral Pennington,
"we find not that we have flattered ourselves with an
imaginary strength and party in the city and elsewhere,
which will fall away if need should be."
Such mob interference with the deliberations of Parlia
ment was, in ordinary circumstances, intolerable, but Charles,
by his maladroit conduct, had done his best to precipitate it.
The capital had become an armed camp ; the fear of revolu
tion was in every heart. " These distempers," wrote Bere,
"have so increased by such little skirmishes, that now the
trained bands keep watch everywhere, all the courtiers are
commanded to wear swords, and a corps-de-garde (guard
house) is built within the rails by Whitehall ; all which fills
every one with fears and apprehensions of greater evils." It
was now the turn of the Lords to ask the Commons to join in
a protestation against the popular violence, and in a petition
to the king for a guard. It was now, too, the turn of the
Commons to refuse. It would be both unreasonable and
impolitic, argued the majority, to condemn the people when
so many designs and plots were daily being hatched against
the safety of Parliament. They would do no more than join in
the request for a guard on condition that Essex should com
mand it. The friction between the two Houses had reached
an acute stage, and Pym had already (3rd December) hazarded
the startling opinion that as the Commons were the represen
tatives of the whole nation, and the Lords but "particular
VOL. III. z

354 The Houses and the Bishops.
persons," it was for the Upper House to bow to the will of the
national representatives in any legislative crisis. The recrimi
nation was aggravated by Digby's motion "that Parliament
was not free," which the Commons resented as an imputation
on themselves. It looked as if these recriminatory legislators
were bent on giving Charles a plausible pretext for overruling
the Dissolution Bill, and commanding them to cease from
troubling him or the nation by their contentions.
From this fate they were saved by the bishops. The
bishops had some reason for opining that, as far as they were
concerned, Parliament was not free, and had consequently ceased
to attend. But they did so in terms that roused the anger of the
Lords, and brought both Houses once more into line in a
common cause. They not only claimed the right to attend
and vote without let or hindrance ; they protested that all
measures passed in their absence were null and void (30th
December). In their resentment at what they considered to
be a high misdemeanour against the privileges of their House,
the Lords at once summoned the Commons to a conference,
and as the result of this conference, Mr Glyn appeared at the
bar of the Upper House on the morrow to impeach the bishops
of high treason and to demand their imprisonment. The
demand was forthwith conceded. Thus the unlucky prelates
had not only at a critical moment restored harmony between
the two Houses ; they had given the majority of the Commons
the opportunity of carrying out, though from different reasons,
that impeachment which they had been in vain pressing on the
Lords for months.
Here was a new conundrum for the hapless Charles to
solve. Even within a couple of days of his desperate coup, he
was still hesitating as well as resolving. On the one hand, he
had established a strong guard at Whitehall and was quietly
collecting a force under the pretext of raising volunteers for
Ireland ; on the other, he actually persuaded himself to
suirimon Pym to fill the office of Chancellor of the Ex
chequer, and thus make a bid for the support of the majority.
Finally, he substituted Culpepper for Pym and made Falkland
Secretary of State, and thus, relying on the support of the
minority, he determined to strike at the majority through
their leaders. The blow was precipitated by the rumour that

Charges against the Five Members. 355
the majority intended to impeach the queen. On the 3rd
January the Attorney-General Herbert accordingly appeared
at the bar of the Lords to accuse Lord Kimbolton (Mande
ville) and five members of the Commons of high treason.
The Commoners were Pym, Hampden, Holies, Hazelrig,
and Strode. Their treason, the Attorney-General asserted,
consisted in an endeavour to subvert the fundamental laws
and government of England, to alienate the loyalty of the
subject, to tamper with the allegiance of the army, to procure
the invasion of the kingdom by a foreign power (Scotland), to
levy war against the king, to subvert the rights of Parliament,
and to establish a regime of force and terror by raising tumults
against both king and Parliament. The charge on which
Charles evidently relied most to prove his case was their
secret communications with the Scots, which the accused
could, however, defend on the ground of the danger to which
Charles' Scottish policy had exposed England itself.
Without waiting for the decision of the Upper House,
which appointed a committee to inquire into precedents,
Charles issued writs for their apprehension, sent a sergeant-
at-arms to the Lower House to demand their delivery, and
ordered their chambers to be searched and sealed. The
majority of the Commons, while courteously replying that
they would take the message into consideration, and under
taking that the accused would be ready to answer any legal
charge against them, refused to deliver them, and raised the
cry of Privilege. They resolved to summon the royal officials,
who had invaded the houses of the accused members, as
delinquents, and declared that such members might forcibly
resist such aggression as a breach of the privilege of Parlia
ment. To these resolutions the Lords gave their approval,
and joined the Commons in demanding a guard.
Charles had now both Houses as well as the city, to which
the Commons appealed for protection, against him. He was
nevertheless, determined not to flinch this time, and the
hysterics of the queen, as well as the exhortations of some
of his councillors, helped to confirm his determination. On
the morrow he set out for Westminster at the head of several
hundred armed men to arrest them himself. He went on a
bootless errand, The accused had been warned by the Earl

356" Charles Invades the Commons.
of Essex and the French ambassador, and, at the instigation
of the House itself, had retired to the city. As he strode
into the House, accompanied by the Palsgrave, the members
could see the fierce faces of the soldiers who pressed into
the lobby after him and who were swearing vengeance on
rebel legislators and, according to report, were quite prepared
to kill or capture the whole Parliament at the slightest en
couragement. Leaving the Earl of Roxburgh to guard the
door, Charles went to the Speaker's chair, whilst the members
stood up in chilly silence to receive him. From the keenness
with which he scanned the spot near the bar, where Pym
usually sat, as he strode forward, the House could guess what
was coming. " By your leave, Mr Speaker," said he, address
ing Lenthal, who stepped out to meet him, " I must borrow
your chair a little." " Gentlemen," he began, after running
his eye over the benches in front, " I am sorry for this
occasion of coming unto you. Yesterday, I sent a sergeant-
at-arms upon a very important occasion to apprehend some
that by my command were accused of high treason ; where-
unto I did expect obedience, and not a message. And I must
declare unto you here that, albeit no king that ever was in
England shall be more careful of your privileges to maintain
them to the uttermost of his power than I shall be, yet you
must know that in cases of treason no person hath a privilege.
And, therefore, I am come to know if any of these persons
that were accused are here."
" I do not see any of them," he muttered, while he paused
to scan the benches. " I think I should know them."
" I must tell you, gentlemen," he resumed, " that so long
as these persons that I have accused (for no slight cause,
but for treason) are here, I cannot expect that the House
will be in the right way that I do heartily wish it. Therefore,
I am come to tell you that I must have them wheresoever
I find them."
'' Is Mr Pym here ? " queried he, after another pause.
Glacial silence.
" Is Mr Holies here ? " Again there was no answer.
" Mr Speaker," said he, turning to Lenthal, " are any of
these persons in the House ? "
" May it please your majesty," returned Lenthal, " I have

Charles Baffled. 357
neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but
as the House is pleased to direct me."
" Well, well," returned Charles, " 'tis no matter. My eyes
are as good as another's."
Another long pause and " a dreadful silence '' ensued.
" Well," resumed he, after this painful survey, " since I see
all the birds are flown, I do expect from you that you shall
send them unto me as soon as they return hither. But I
assure you, on the word of a king, I never did intend any
force, but shall proceed against them in a legal and fair
way, for I never meant any other. And now, since I see
I cannot do what I came for, I think this no unfit occasion
to repeat what I have said formerly, that whatsoever I have
done in favour and to the good of my subjects, I do mean
to maintain it."
With vexation stamped on his face he strode towards the
door to rejoin his impatient guards, who meanwhile had been
indulging in no very parliamentary language. According to
D'Ewes, who surely exaggerates, the intention of these
desperadoes was not only to carry off the accused members
by force, in case the House refused to surrender them, but
to massacre every one of their fellow-members who offered
the slightest resistance. There can be no doubt, at any rate,
that the House would have doggedly resisted this outrage
ous attempt had Charles been able to surprise the accused in
their places., His exit was the signal for an outburst of angry
dissent. " The House," notes Rushworth, " was in great dis
order, and many members cried out aloud, so as he might
hear them, ' Privilege,' ' Privilege.' "
Charles had committed an enormous blunder as well as an
outrage. He could not have done anything more ¦ calculated
to intensify distrust and hostility both inside and outside
Parliament. He had simply aroused the insurrectionary spirit
without attaining his immediate object, had "bred such a dis
temper both in the Cittie and Houses of Parliament," to quote
a contemporary letter-writer, " that we are not free from the
fears of an insurrection." A more astute man would at least
have taken pains to assure himself against such a rebuff. The
procession of some hundreds of armed men from Whitehall to
Westminster was not likely to deceive those on the watch for

358 Charles at the Guildhall.
events. The Commons had, in truth, been warned by Essex
and the French ambassador a couple of hours before Charles
set out on his fool's errand.
Charles never showed himself equal to a crisis. He always
makes the impression on such occasions of trying to play a
r61e beyond his powers. The hero of the piece is always
a failure. Whether in presence of Leslie's host on Duns
Law, or the angry crowd before Whitehall clamouring for
Strafford's head, or the sullen, impassive Commoners at West
minster, the impression is the same — that of the weak man
trying to act the strong man and only exposing his weakness
and earning discredit for his pains. It is evident that he could
not risk more such displays of impotence with impunity.
In its agitation the House forthwith adjourned till the
morrow. On the morrow (5th January) it passed an order
declaring the royal conduct to be "a high breach of the
rights and privileges of Parliament," which called for prompt
reparation, adjourning itself till the nth January, and ap
pointing a committee, of which the whole House might be
members, to sit meanwhile at the Guildhall. On the same
day Charles made an equally futile attempt to run his prey
to earth in the city. His progress, while going and coming,
was greeted with renewed cries of " Privilege," and one deter
mined champion of the Parliament threw into his coach a
paper with the ominous words, " To your tents, O Israel "
— a plain intimation that Charles, like Rehoboam, had forfeited
his crown. " Yesterday," wrote Slyngesbie to Pennington on
6th January, " it was my fortune, being in a coach, to meet
the king with a small train going into the city ; whereupon
I followed him to the Guildhall, where the Mayor and all
the Aldermen and Common Council were met. The king
made a speech to them, declaring his intentions to join with
the Parliament in extirpation of Popery and all schisms and
sectaries, and of redressing of all the grievances of the subject,
and his care to preserve the privileges of Parliament, but
(declared his intention) to question these traitors. . . . After
a little pause a cry was set up amongst the Common Council,
' Parliament ! ' ' Privileges of Parliament ! ' and presently an
other, ' God bless the King.' These two continued both at
once a good while. I know not which was loudest. After

"The Privileges of Parliament." 359
some knocking for silence, the king commanded one to speak,
if they had anything to say. One said, ' It is the vote of this
court that your majesty hear the advice of your Parliament ' ;
but presently another answered, ' It is not the vote of this
court ; it is your own vote.' The king replied, ' Who is it
that says I do not take the advice of my Parliament ? I do
take their advice, and will ; but I must distinguish between
the Parliament and some traitors in it, and these he would
bring to legal trial.' Another bold fellow in the lowest rank
stood upon a form and cried, ' The Privileges of Parliament'
Another cried out, ' Observe the man ; apprehend him ! '
The king mildly replied, ' I have and will observe all privi
leges of Parliament, but no privileges can protect a traitor
from a legal trial,' and so departed. In the outer hall were
a multitude of the ruder people, who, as the king went out,
set up a great cry, ' The Privileges of Parliament' At the
king's coming there was a mean fellow came into the privy
chamber, who had a paper sealed up, which he would needs
deliver to the king himself. Owing to his much importunity,
it was urged he was mad or drunk, but he denied both. The
gentleman usher took the paper from him, and carried it to
the king, desiring some gentlemen there to keep the man.
He was presently sent for in, and is kept a prisoner, but I
know not where."
Charles had evidently alienated public opinion, despite the
ardent support of a Royalist faction, and public opinion was
now in England a force which it was dangerous even for a
king to challenge in this cavalier spirit. He was, indeed,
within a few days, fain to recognise the fact. On the 7th the
deputies of the Common Council appeared at Whitehall to
petition in favour of the privileges of Parliament. In reply he
instanced the prevalence of tumult and sedition in vindication
of his action. He was still resolute to compass his purpose.
He was singularly ingenuous ; too sanguine by far to look
facts in the face. In the presence of the determined opposi
tion of the city, it was nothing short of madness to persist in
appealing to force. Against his few hundred cavaliers the
city trained bands were ready to rise in their tens of thousands
in defence of the Parliament, and that very night 40,000
of them rushed to arms, in spite of the Lord Mayor, on

360 Charles Retires — The Commons Return.
a false alarm that Lunsford and his desperadoes were on the
war-path. Still Charles persisted, and on the 8th fulminated
a proclamation commanding the subjects to seize the accused
members. The response of the Commons' committee, which
had meanwhile been busy debating and resolving the illegal
ity of the king's proceedings, was to condemn the proclama
tion as false and scandalous, to declare that whoever should
carry it into effect was " an enemy of the commonwealth," to
invite the five members to resume their seats, and to summon
the trained bands, under Skippon as major-general, in virtue of
their own authority, to protect them. On the 10th Pym and
his fellow-fugitives accordingly entered the Grocers' Hall,
whither the Commons had removed, amid the acclamations of
the people and the welcome of their fellow-members.
Charles saw that he was worsted, and that afternoon set
out in a panic from Whitehall, en route for Hampton Court
and Windsor. On the following day the Commons, with the
five members in their midst, were rowed up the river to
Westminster, under the protection of the trained bands and
amid the rejoicings of the vast crowds that escorted them by
land and water. It seemed as if the people were celebrating
the discomfiture of their king as well as the triumph of their
representatives. At that moment Pym, rather than Charles,
was king ; at all events, Parliament seemed supreme in the
land. " What these distempers will produce," wrote Wiseman
to Pennington, " the God of heaven knows, but it is feared
they cannot otherwise end than in blood."
SOURCES. — Lords' Journals, iv. and v. ; Commons' Jour
nals, ii. ; State Papers, 1640-42, edited by Hamilton ; Sir
Ralph Verney's Notes of Proceedings in the Long Parliament,
edited by Bruce for Camden Society (1845); Scobell, Collec
tion of Acts and Ordinances ; Gardiner, Constitutional Docu
ments of the Puritan Revolution ; Rushworth, Collections, iv. ;
Nalson, Impartial Collection, ii. (this Royalist author's com
ments are anything but impartial) ; May, History of the Long
Parliament ; Bate (one of Charles' physicians), Elenchus
Motuum (1663) ; Whitelocke, Memorials; Clarendon, History
of the Rebellion, ii. and iii. (often untrustworthy and requires
to be read in a critical spirit) ; Parliamentary History, ii.

Sources of Chapter XV. 361
(partly antiquated) ; State Trials, iv. ; Forster, Lives of Pym,
Hampden, Vane, Cromwell, Martin in Lardner's Cabinet
Encyclopaedia (1837-38); Whitelocke, Memoirs of Bulstrode
Whitelocke (i860) ; Ranke, History of England, vol. ii. The
following are indispensable to any one studying the older
authorities ; they both correct and amplify them : — Sandford,
Studies of the Great Rebellion ; Forster, The Debates on the
Grand Remonstrance (i860), and, Arrest of the Five Members
(i860); Gardiner, History of England, x. (1891). These
three writers have made ample use of D'Ewes' Diary. Mr
Sandford and Mr Forster have, in fact, based their narratives
almost entirely on the account of the erudite antiquary, who
was also an active Member of Parliament. Of the three, Mr
Gardiner's work is the most judicious. Mr Forster writes in
too partisan a spirit on the side of the Parliament's champions.
For Scottish affairs see State Papers ; Register of the
Privy Council of Scotland, vii., edited by Hume Brown (1906) ;
Baillie's Letters, i. ; Hardwicke, State Papers, ii. ; Burnet's
Lives of the Dukes of Hamilton ; Bishop Guthry's Memoirs ;
Burton, History of Scotland, vi.
For Irish affairs — Contemporary History of Affairs in
Ireland (1641-52), or, Aphorismical Discovery of Treasonable
Faction, edited by J. T. Gilbert, Irish Archaeological and
Celtic Society (1879), containing large selection of original
documents ; Bellings' History of the Irish Confederation
(1641-43), edited by Gilbert, 1882. The author was Secretary
of the Council of the Confederation. These give the Catholic
view of the rising. Miss Hickson, Ireland in the Seventeenth
Century, containing the Depositions as to the Massacres (1884),
written from the Protestant standpoint; Ormonde Papers
(1641-60), edited by Carte (1739).

CHAPTER XVI.
The Supremacy of Parliament (January-August 1642).
If the quarrel were to continue, it was evident that the
Commons would end by proclaiming and applying this
supremacy. It was no longer a question of constitutional
precedents, but of practical exigencies. We have reached the
revolutionary stage when circumstances, not traditions, fur
nish the grand motive power of action. The right to direct
belonged, from the practical point of view, not to the worsted,
but to the triumphant party. Charles would have to do the
will of Parliament, not his own, if the crown was to remain
on his head. Events had forced the question of sovereignty
into the arena of practical politics, and no act of the king
could now be the act of a sovereign except as signified by
both Houses of Parliament. In other words, no executive
act could be valid without Parliamentary assent, and if Charles
protested or resisted, the nation must yield obedience to
Parliament in preference to him. Such was the alternative
towards which events now rapidly tended. The question
might occur whether Parliament in its sovereign function
really represented the nation. That question is rather for the
historian than the practical politician to ask.
If Charles was not the man to achieve victory, he was not
the man to accept defeat. Even yet he would not abandon
his case against the five members. He would " waive his
former proceedings," he informed the Commons, would be
"as careful of their privileges as of his life or his crown."
But he would " proceed," all the same, " in an unquestionable
way." That is to say, he would not accept the return of the
five members, with the approval of their fellows, as a decisive
termination of the affair. The Commons had already shown
what they thought of these " proceedings," and they in turn
now proceeded to impeach the Attorney-General for his share

Parliament Adopts Defensive Measures. 363
in them. They called on Charles to produce proofs in order
that their guilt or innocence might be established in a legal
manner. Charles ultimately tried to hush up the matter by
the offer of a general pardon. The quarrel had, however,
gone too far for him to be allowed to retrieve his blunder in
thjs furtive fashion. The Lords and Commons insisted on
the vindication of the privileges of Parliament and the innocence
of the accused, and repeated their demand for the delivery of
the authors of these calumnies to justice. To hush up or
compromise was now impossible. Both sides were, in fact,
already taking measures that pointed to the arbitration of the
sword. Charles, for example, sent an emissary northwards to
secure Hull, where there was a magazine of war material
collected on the occasion of the Scottish invasion, and where
foreign mercenaries might find a safe landing-place. The
Parliament, on its side, anticipated by sending Sir John
Hotham's son to take possession in its name. Still more
ominous of civil war was the order, " in the name of the Lords
and Commons," to the sheriffs of counties, apropos of an
attempt of Lunsford and Digby to seize the magazine at
Kingston in Surrey, to raise the trained bands and
suppress all such attempts wherever they might be made.
A similar Parliamentary order was sent to Colonel Goring
not to surrender Portsmouth or allow any armed force to
enter it, except by authority of Parliament. By taking these
precautions for the safety of the kingdom, Parliament was
calmly superseding the king and assuming the royal function
in a superlatively important matter. It was doing so, how
ever, in no rebellious, factious spirit, but acting from what it
considered, with no small justification, dire necessity. It
would be to misinterpret the motives of its members to believe
the denunciations of Royalist critics, like Bate, who saw no
thing but faction and disloyalty in the Parliamentary attitude.
" They are the greatest and only rebels I know in England,"
wrote Smith to Pennington on 17th January, (who) "go about
the kingdom raising tumults and false reports to put the land
into an uproar if they can, and scandalise the honourable
and just proceedings of the Parliament with lying and unjust
imputations." These precautions were in fact the preliminary to the

364 The Militia Ordinance.
Militia Ordinance, which went brusquely beyond the Militia
Bill of December, and enacted that the militia and the
fortresses (including the Tower) should be placed under the
command of persons nominated by Parliament. The Lords
at first hesitated to challenge the undoubted prerogative of
the king in this matter, but ultimately gave way and joined
in the petition of the Commons to this effect (2nd February).
Charles demurred. If the Parliament would declare the
extent of the powers to be conferred on their nominees and
limit the time for their exercise he would consent, provided
further that he discovered no reason to take just exception
to them. He tried to frustrate further insistence by giving his
consent to the Clerical Disabilities Bill which deprived the
bishops of their seats in the Upper House, and which the
Lords had at length passed in deference to numerous peti
tions, and to the Impressment Bill which limited his right to
press soldiers by the consent of Parliament (13th February).
All chance of a compromise was, however, dashed by the dis
covery of fresh intrigues by the queen and Digby, who had
both crossed the Channel to organise an invasion from
Holland and Denmark. Parliament, therefore, refused to
limit its demands. The commanding officers to be appointed
must be responsible for the exercise of their powers to Parlia
ment, and should exercise these powers pending its pleasure.
Charles, nevertheless, clung to his reservations. " His majesty,"
he bade the Lord Keeper Lyttleton reply on the 28th February,
" cannot consent to divest himself of the just power which
God and the laws of this kingdom have placed in him for the
defence of his people, and to put it into the hands of any other
for any indefinite time."
The reply of the Lords and Commons on the 1st March
was in the nature of an ultimatum. " Unless you shall be
graciously pleased to assure them by these messages that you
will speedily apply your royal assent to the satisfaction of
their former desires, they shall be enforced, for the safety of
your majesty and your kingdom, to dispose of the militia by
the authority of both Houses in such manner as hath been
proposed unto your majesty, and they resolve to do it accord
ingly." They further demanded that he should eschew wicked
councillors and return to London.

Charles Refuses to Entertain It. 365
" I am so amazed at this message," returned Charles on
the following day, "that I know not what to answer. You
speak of jealousies and fears. Lay your hands to your hearts
and ask yourselves whether I may not likewise be disturbed
with fears and jealousies. And if so, I assure you that this
message hath nothing lessened them. For the militia I
thought so much of it before I sent that answer, and am so
much assured that the answer is agreeable to what in justice
or reason you can ask, or I in honour grant, that I shall not
alter it in any point. For my residence near you, I wish it
might be so safe and honourable that I had no cause to
absent myself from Whitehall ; ask yourselves whether I
have not."
The answer of the Commons was resolute enough.
"Those that advised his majesty," resolved they, "to give
this answer are enemies of the State, and mischievous pro
jectors against the defence of the kingdom."
The retort of both Houses on the 5th March was to pass
the Militia Ordinance, with a modification to the extent of
leaving out the king's name and simply ordaining "by the
Lords and Commons now in Parliament assembled." There
were, however, differences of opinion. "Some," we are
informed by Rushworth, " declared that the power of the
militia was solely in the king, and ought to be left to him,
and that Parliament never did, nor ought to meddle with the
same." The opinion was weighty from the constitutional
point of view, but in revolutionary times, when the supreme
question is to secure the mastery, any argument comes handy.
" Others," continues Rushworth, " were of opinion that the
king had not this power in him, but that it was in Parliament,
and that if the king refused to order it according to the advice
of Parliament, that then they, by the law, might do it without
him." This was the argument of expediency. In an emergency
such as this, when the king cannot be trusted, Parliament was
entitled to interpret the law in accordance with the safety of
the State, and ensure its tranquillity by placing the national
forces under its orders. It was at least appropriate to the
time, and Charles, by his blunder in attacking the privileges
of Parliament and retiring from the capital, had done his best
to give force to it. That the Lords and Commons did not,

366 An Angry Interview.
however, mean thereby virtually to dethrone the king is
evident from the fact that a large number of Royalists was
included in the list of officers nominated. It was a pre
cautionary measure ; nothing more. The supreme point was
that, in the existing danger of a reaction, these officers should
be under their direction. Others, again, believed that this
power was neither in the king nor the Parliament, but in both
together. The king may have the power of the sword, but
Parliament has the power of the purse, and without the purse
the sword is useless.
In defence of their action they sent a deputation to New
market to present a Declaration which was a grand remon
strance in miniature, and to urge anew the surrender of
wicked councillors and the royal return to London. Charles
gave the deputies an angry reception. He had promised
the queen, before her departure to the Continent with the
crown jewels to win friends, to remain firm, and he kept
his word. " What would you have ? Have I violated your
laws? Have I denied to pass any Bill for the ease and
security of my subjects ? I do not ask you what you have
done for me. Have any of my people been transported with
fears and jealousies? I have offered as free and general a
pardon as yourselves can devise. All this considered, there is
a judgment from heaven upon this nation, if these distractions
continue." The Declaration was very much to the point, and during
its recital by the Earl of Holland Charles completely lost
his usual self-control. " That's false," " 'Tis a lie," he burst
out in comment on several passages. " It is a high thing
to tax a kiftg with breach of promise." " What; have I
denied the Parliament ? " he asked Holland. " The militia,"
was the reply. " That was no Bill," returned Charles. " It
was a necessary request at this time," answered Holland.
" I have not denied it," was the retort. Even yet, in spite of
petitions and remonstrances, Charles had not realised the
necessities of the situation. Nothing short of absolute cer
tainty would restore confidence in his word. He must be
deprived of any possibility of shirking the fiat of the
nation, expressed through its representatives. On the mor
row, in further conference, the two parties were as far from

Parliament's Interpretation of Law Authoritative. 367
understanding as ever. After some futile debate, Pembroke
asked Charles to explain what he would have. " I would
whip a boy in Westminster school," returned he, " who could
not tell me that by my answer." " Would he not then grant
the militia ? " queried Pembroke. " By God," swore Charles,
"not for an hour. You have asked that of me in this was
never asked of any king, and with which I will not trust my
wife and children."
In this spirit he sent a message to both Houses, laying it
down as a fundamental law that no subject can be obliged to
obey any Act or order to which his majesty hath not given
his consent.
The answer of the Lords and Commons was equally
explicit. On 16th March, they resolved: "That when the
Lords and Commons in Parliament, which is the supreme
court of judicature in the kingdom, shall declare what the
law of the land is, to have this not only questioned and
controverted, but contradicted, and a command that it
should not be obeyed, is a high breach of the privilege of
Parliament." The recrimination briskly continued in a series of petitions,
declarations, messages which only widened the rift in the
commonwealth. Charles laboured in vain to exculpate him
self from the charges of evil designs against the Parliament,
and reiterated his counter-charges. The Parliament plainly
did not believe much that he said in self-vindication. It
cited the arbitrary acts committed both before and during
the Long Parliament in confutation of his professions, and
adduced facts to prove that Digby, whom it impeached, was
busy plotting a foreign invasion in conjunction with the queen.
It proceeded to exemplify the powers it claimed by ordering
Northumberland, the Lord High Admiral, to instal Warwick
as Vice-Admiral, in preference to Pennington, the king's
nominee (4th April). Charles made one more attempt at
accommodation. He proffered a Militia Bill of his own,
which proposed to entrust the command to the persons
named by Parliament for one year pending his absence in
Ireland. It was passed by Parliament, but with such
modifications that he refused his assent. "What," asked
Charles, " would all Christian princes think of us after we had

368 The Nineteen Propositions.
passed such a Bill ? " (28th April). Such a question was
little fitted to convince the Parliament of its errors. What
foreign potentates might think of Charles' royal prestige was
of little consequence, compared with the question of the
security of England from a royal tyranny based on foreign
models, whose establishment it feared. His sovereignty was,
in truth, a thing of the past in the eyes of those Englishmen
who held fast to the conviction that it was incompatible with
the safety of the commonwealth. When, on the 23rd April,
he appeared before Hull to demand admission, the younger
Hotham raised the drawbridge and declared from the wall
above that he was bound to obey the Parliament. It was a
bitter humiliation for the man who had been brought up on
the high maxims of James I. In his distress he turned once
more to Scotland for help. Scotland, under Argyll's aus
pices, was not prepared to espouse his cause, and the Scottish
Council advised him to come to terms with his Parliament.
It was to advise the impossible. Further interchange of com
munications only made the situation more hopeless, and
on the 27th May Charles absolutely prohibited by procla
mation the trained bands from obeying the Ordinance of
Parliament. The proclamation called forth the Nineteen Propositions
(1st June), which demanded, inter alia, that all ministers and
Privy Councillors not approved by Parliament should be dis
missed from their offices, that all great affairs of State should
be debated and resolved by Parliament only, that matters
proper to the Privy Council should be transacted by Coun
cillors approved by Parliament, and no act of Council should
have validity unless passed by a majority, that the appoint
ment of all high officials of State should be subject to
Parliamentary approval, that the recusancy laws should
strictly be put in execution, Charles' government reformed
as Parliament should advise, the Militia Ordinance accepted
and the proclamation against it recalled, Privy Councillors
and judges be bound on oath to maintain the Petition of
Right, all fortresses placed under the command of officers
appointed by Parliament, and the accused members cleared
by Parliamentary Act.
Parliament is thus the grand factor in government as

Declaration of Supremacy of Parliament. 3^9
well as legislation, and King Charles is merely the executant
of its will, the mere chairman of a body of trustees acting for
the nation. He has practically no executive power in him
self, no right to resist Parliament on the plea of law or
tradition. In any case of contention with the king, its vote
is law, its authority supreme. And Parliament not only
assumed its virtual sovereignty in these propositions ; it
enunciated it unequivocally in a declaration in reply to the
proclamation against its Ordinance. "The High Court of
Parliament is not only a court of judicature, enabled by the
laws to adjudge and determine the rights and liberties of the
kingdom against such patents and grants of his majesty as
are prejudicial thereto, although strengthened both by his
personal command and by his proclamation under the great
seal ; but it is likewise a council to provide for the necessi
ties, prevent the imminent dangers, and preserve the public
peace and safety of the kingdom, and to declare the king's
pleasure in those things as are requisite thereunto ; and what
they do herein hath the stamp of royal authority, although his
majesty, seduced by evil counsel, do in his own person oppose
or interrupt the same ; for the king's supreme and royal plea
sure is exercised and declared in this High Court of law and
council after a more eminent and obligatory manner than it
can be by personal act or resolution of his own."
Parliament, as the representative of the nation, is the real
sovereign of the State. Such is the doctrine of Pym. The
State, thus governed by a sovereign Parliament, may be no
formal republic. There is still room for a king, even a
hereditary king, but the will of this king must coincide with
the will of Parliament, and if not, it is for the king to give
way in deference to its collective will. In his proclamation
against the Militia Ordinance, Charles had demanded obedi
ence as "sovereign lord," and had based his claim to this
obedience on a statute of Edward I. He was now told that
he was not sole sovereign lord, but only a partner in the
sovereignty, and, in case of any critical contention with
Parliament, but a subordinate partner. He was further told
that the statute referred to had no bearing on this matter,
and would not bear the meaning, he sought to put upon it.
In the assertive mood of Parliament, it is probable that no
VOL. III. 2 A

370 The Sovereignty of Parliament.
statute that he could have quoted would have had any weight.
For the significant fact is that Parliament is ready to go
beyond precedent and tradition and to act and argue as
national necessity directs. It has ventured to take a step
in advance, to grapple with a question as the present, not
the past, dictates. In this sense it had become a progres
sive body, responsive to new ideas, aspirations. Not that it
championed the great modern principle of toleration or the
doctrine of the sovereignty of the people in the full modern
sense. It was still excessively narrow in its religious
views and firmly believed that a Parliamentary vote was
sufficient to supersede the voice of conscience. It was the
sovereignty of Parliament, as then constituted, not of the
people in the larger sense that it championed. It did not
pause to ask whether Parliament, as thus constituted, really
represented the people. It could not of course do so. It
was fighting for supremacy, in defence of what it believed
to be the true interests of the nation, and the hour of con
flict was not the time to enter into questions of franchise or
redistribution. These would force themselves into prominence
later. Its assumption of sovereignty was simply directed
against a king whom, in its view, it was dangerous to trust
with its exercise, and on grounds of utility as well as reason
it would not be restrained from asserting its supremacy by
mere traditional arguments. Charles having failed as a ruler,
it will simply ensure that government shall be under its
control for the future. From the point of view of a Pym,
who believed firmly in the danger of allowing Charles to
rule on the old terms, it is easy to see the cogency of this
reasoning. Pym, we believe, was not far wrong. Charles'
blunders and intrigues made it very difficult to come to any
other conclusion. Parliament must master him or depose
him. The experiment of a Parliamentary supremacy was, how
ever, in the circumstances, not without its dangers. Suppose
this Parliament continued, in virtue of the Dissolution Bill,
to exercise the sovereignty without reference to the will of
the nation ? Suppose it persisted in carrying out an ecclesias
tical revolution that a large section of the nation abhorred,
as appeared from the counter-petitions presented from various

Dubiety and Defection. 371
parts of the country, notably from Kent ? Suppose it should
ostracise the minority and become but a faction ? Suppose,
finally, it tried to do what a large deliberative assembly is
unfitted to do — assume the executive function, the work of
the few ? There certainly was room for dubiety as to the
trend of things, and it was this dubiety that enabled Charles
to rally a strong party to his side in the shock of contending
armies that ere long gave place to the war of words. It
would only be tedious to follow this war of words further.
The positions of the two parties are sufficiently defined. It is
simply a case of king and Church on the one side, of Parlia
mentary supremacy over both on the other. It was this
issue that split the nation into Cavalier and Roundhead,
that sent a section of both Houses, with Hyde, who had
acted as Charles' trusty adviser since the rupture with Parlia
ment in January, in the van, northward to join the king at
York, and second their opposition with their swords. The
two Houses had acted with apparent unanimity since the
protest of the bishops and the arrest of the five members.
There were, however, animosities in both, and the former
majority of the Lords had latterly been attenuated by absen
teeism. Even without the bishops, the voting power of the
peers had been materially reduced before the climax was
reached. It was this conflict of principle that was now to be put to
the arbitration of the sword by both sides. On the nth
June Charles issued Commissions of Array ordering the
trained bands to muster under officers selected by his com
missioners. He appealed again to Scotland for assistance,
while the queen was making strenuous exertions to secure
the active intervention of France, Holland, Denmark. The
response of Scotland was not encouraging. The men of Fife
and the Lothians rallied to the support of Argyll, and the
Scottish Council sent word once more to Charles to come to
terms with his Parliament. The fleet, too, refused to recog
nise the Lord Admiral appointed by him, and declared for
Warwick, the nominee of Parliament.
On its side the Parliament was not slack in making
counter-preparations. In the beginning of July it appointed
an executive under the name of a Committee of Safety, and

372 The Climax at Last.
voted the levy of an army of 10,000 men under the Earl
of Essex as general. It published a declaration, laying the
responsibility for the war on Charles, who had meanwhile
advanced to attack Hull. It was loth, however, to unsheathe
the sword, and proposed an accommodation. Its petition to
this effect merely resulted in more futile messages and de
clarations, and Charles at length put an end to further parley
by proclaiming Essex and his fellow-officers traitors (9th
August). Thereupon Lords and Commons swore to live
and die with their commander, and in turn declared all
who should engage in a war against Parliament traitors to
their country. The climax came at last when, on the 22nd
August, the royal standard was raised at Nottingham in the
presence of the king, his two sons, and his two nephews,
Rupert and Maurice, amid cries of " God save King Charles
and hang up the Roundheads."
Towards this climax both sides had been working, and
both sides must bear the responsibility. The Royalist who
would exculpate Charles is as biassed as the out-and-out
champion of the Parliament who can see no defects in the
Parliamentary position. Charles had forfeited the confidence
of Parliament, and he could only regain it by accepting the
terms offered him. These terms were very exacting, and it
was natural that he should resist. His religious convictions
and his firm belief in his inherited rights made surrender
difficult, if not impossible. He had the misfortune to be
wedded to a system to whose realisation he was unequal,
and he persisted with a determination, which flowed from
no source of strength of character and supereminent ability,
in hugging his belief in his system and in himself. Constitu
tionally, if not personally, he had, however, strong arguments
to adduce in support of his contentions. He came, as the
conflict progressed, to occupy the position which the Parlia
ment had left, to appeal to law and precedent. Coming from
a stronger man, the appeal might have prevailed. Coming
from Charles, it was absolutely impotent. He had long lost
the chance of making any impression on his opponents.
From the day that Strafford died, it was his interest and
his policy to make friends of Parliament, and by relinquishing
all thought of a reaction, endeavour to work with it without

Wherein Charles Erred. 373
reservation. If he was too weak to save Strafford, he was too
weak ever to hope to engage successfully in a struggle with
the powerful body that had sent Strafford to his doom.
Reaction might help him, but Charles was not the man to
lead a reaction to victory in the face of the strong men
opposed to him, of a Pym, a Hampden, a Cromwell, and
many more, born to fight for victory in such a cause. The
age produced the men to make it what it was, and thus
hereditary pretext had no chance against high ability,
strenuous purpose. Moreover, by his blunders and his
underhand tactics he merely worked into the hands of the
majority that no reaction could subvert. Had he known
where his real interest lay, and unreservedly nurtured a
spirit of confidence, he would have saved the bishops, and
there would have been no Militia Bill or Ordinance. It was
not the least of his blunders that he persisted in ignoring
the facts of the situation which his incapacity for getting
in touch with actuality had created. He preferred to follow
his own bent and yield to hostile influences. Of these the
most pernicious was that of a queen who had imbibed the
absolutist maxims of her race, and whose religion and intrigues
alone were fatal bars to the maintenance of confidence between
king and people. The influence of a Laud and a Wentworth,
which remained after the scaffold or the prison had removed
them from the stage, was only less fatal. For a Laud the
duty of the subject is obedience. There are neither rights
nor wrongs as against the king. His majesty's personal
wishes and policy stop all remonstrance, all criticism, and
this infatuated loyalty could only lead the object of it to
disaster. This influence contributed to nurse the imagination
that he could still put back the clock and afford to ignore the
spirit of the age. But the Zeit Geist in 1642 was something
very different from the Zeit Geist in the age of Elizabeth.
The self-consciousness of Parliament had grown steadily since
Elizabeth's death, and Charles, whose maladroit measures had
imparted such an impulse to it, was too weak a man and ruler
to attempt to stem it.
On the other hand, Pym and his followers were inclined
to be too precipitate, intolerant, uncompromising. There
were several occasions on which they might have tried the

374 Parliament too Uncompromising.
experiment of taking Charles at his word, times when he
evidently used the language of complete assurance, unless
we are to believe that he was one of the most consummate
hypocrites of history. It would have been risky, in general,
to place absolute reliance on his word, owing to his inveterate
habit of meaning more or less than he said. He was prone
to extricate himself from a present difficulty with a future
hope of ultimately retracing his steps. But after the absolute
failure of his policy of coercion, he was brought so low as
to confess his errors in explicit terms. Such a confession
could only have been wrung from him when there was no
possible room for subterfuge, and it made it very difficult
for him to risk thus discrediting himself a second time.
Pym and his followers might, therefore, have allowed the
angry passions conjured by the attempt on the five members
to subside, and accepted his confession as sufficient reparation.
They might have refrained from pushing their ecclesiastical
policy to the verge of revolution, in deference to the con
victions both of the king and a large section of the nation.
They might have evinced more self-restraint and insight.
Had they foreseen the dangers that lay ahead from the
self-assertion of this particular Parliament as well as from
Royalist reaction, they would doubtless have tempered zeal
with discretion. That they did not foresee is hardly a crime,
though it certainly was a mistake. What they did see, and
what we should probably have seen in their place, was the
present danger of stopping short of absolute guarantees
against reaction towards the irresponsible regime of a
Strafford and a Laud. The Petition of Right had not pre
vented Charles from ruling in an irresponsible fashion, and
men who had lived through these years of illegality and
oppression might be excused for opining that, with a Charles
on the throne, not even triennial Parliaments, not even
Dissolution Bills, nothing but absolute mastery would fore
stall their recurrence. It was after all very unlikely that a
man like Charles Stuart, who would naturally give ear to
counsellors who consulted his convictions and prejudices,
would not take the first opportunity of ignoring the limits
imposed on his prerogative. The plain fact was that with
such a king and such a Parliament, government and legis-

Where the Chief Responsibility Lay. 375
lation had become unworkable. We may suggest how it
might have been different, but it could only have been
different by making both king and Parliament other than
they were. Pym and his followers could only be expected
to act in accordance with their experience, and was it possible
for them, with their experience of the real Charles, to imagine
a Charles for whom old things were passed away, and all
things had become new? Arm-chair historians can easily
delineate such a phenomenon. Men in the thick of the battle,
with resentments and fears to urge them on, are not arm-chair
historians. They feel all the keen influences of the strife which
are to us as dead as the faded parchment of its records.
Perhaps the chief responsibility lies with the men who
transformed themselves into a Royalist party without being
sure that the old constitution which they advocated was safe
in Charles' hands. Had they preserved their independence as
between Charles and the party of Pym, things might indeed
have been different. Charles at least would not have been
able to appeal to the sword with any hope of success. The
class of mere courtiers who thought more of the favour of a
king than of their country (and the State papers show that
there were too many such) had much to answer for.
' SOURCES. — Same as for the preceding chapter.

CHAPTER XVII.
Civil War — The First Two Campaigns (1642-1643).
Was the conflict which Clarendon describes as the Rebellion,
others as the Great Civil War, a conflict for the sake of certain
theories? According to the conventional view, Englishmen
and Scotsmen have always acted, in matters constitutional,
from utilitarian motives. Burke, for example, sees in the
development of the English constitution the expression of
this utility operating throughout the centuries, and Burke's
eloquence and influence have transformed his opinion into a
doctrine. As a rule the doctrine holds. Englishmen and
Scotsmen have usually developed their constitution from
practical motives. Nevertheless, it is wide of the mark to
assume that Englishmen and Scotsmen are incapable of the
enthusiasm, intensity on behalf of theory, even political theory,
pure and simple, to which other peoples are supposed to be
peculiarly addicted. This is one of those historical generalisa
tions which, like so many attempts to differentiate between
the characteristics of peoples, are largely assumptions. The
martyrs of the English and Scottish Reformation, the staunch
contendings of Puritan and Covenanter for conscience' sake,
and, we may add, this mighty conflict between Cavaliers and
Roundheads, are sufficient to remind us that theory, as well as
utility, has had its r61e, its superlative role, in British history.
Whether we call this conflict a rebellion or a civil war, it was
a war waged on theoretic as well as practical grounds. All
through the struggle the combatants contended for certain
principles which have a theoretic as well as a practical side.
Whatever the shades of opinion in the Puritan camp, the
followers of Pym and Cromwell alike fought for the doctrine
of the right of resistance to an unconstitutional monarch.
They might appeal to law in support of their contention.

A War for Certain Ideas. 377
But the appeal was the formula of a principle whose real force
lay, not in the witness of some musty law book, but in the
convictions of those who made it. The war, to quote Mr
Firth, the greatest living authority on the period, was "a
struggle of opinions and ideas." For the sake of these
opinions and ideas Puritan met Royalist in deadly strife on
the battlefield. In the Puritan it is the spirit of the crusader,
the spirit of the man that fights for an idea that inspires the
determination to grasp the sword and decide the conten
tion of the forum at its point. Nor was theory confined
merely to matters mundane. The Puritan fought for God as
well as for his political ideas, for a fuller reformation of the
Church, in accordance with the Bible and Calvin; for a
view of life' which, though narrow, was intense ; though one
sided and in some respects unenlightened, was in close touch
with the Unseen. To him it was a war of religion as well as
of politics — the salvation of his soul as well as the welfare of
the kingdom was at stake. Cromwell long afterwards, in a
speech to the first Protectorate Parliament, emphasised indeed
the fact that the war was in its origin a struggle mainly for
political liberty against despotism, but even Cromwell admitted
that it became a religious war as well. " Religion was not the
thing at first contested for ; but God brought it to that issue
at last ; and gave it unto us by way of redundancy ; and at
last it proved to be that which was most dear unto us."
Cromwell notwithstanding, the religious as well as the
political question exercised a strong influence on many from
the beginning, though it might not by itself have precipitated
the Puritan host into the battlefield.
On the other side, too, theoretic as well as practical con
siderations furnished potent motives of action. Conviction,
whether political or religious, was no monopoly of the
Puritan crusader. To the Royalist, the sacredness of kings,
the inadmissibility of rebellion against the lawful monarch,
the traditional continuity of the Anglican Church, were as
indisputable as the axioms of Euclid, and for the sake of
these axioms he, too, was ready to fight and die. And in
championing these verities he believed that he was not
fighting against the Parliament, but against a faction. To
the other side this was a pure sophism, which they answered

378 Ideals on Both Sides.
by asking how a faction of twelve or twenty persons could
compel a whole assembly to do their will. If the rights of
Parliament were a sort of religion to this side, the rights of
royalty constituted no less an act of faith on the other. Such
high-strung, such chivalrous natures, to whom rebellion was a
crime, naturally rallied around a Prince Rupert, the dashing
soldier, to whose military instinct the Puritan was a miserable
anarchist. Some, like Sir Edmund Verney, were indeed so
chivalrous that from a pure feeling of loyalty they went
against their conviction of the practical justice of the Parlia
mentary cause, belied their votes on the questions which had
convulsed the assembly at Westminster, and repaired to York
to fight for the king, and die, equally with the grimmest
Puritan, at Edgehill and elsewhere, for an idea. From the
theoretic point of view the conflict was, in truth, not merely
between two parties in Church and State, but between two
different species of character, two divergent schools of thought,
sentiment, experience. The psychologist and the political
philosopher might have hazarded the prediction that such
and such an individual would inevitably turn a Royalist or
Roundhead. In a certain sense, indeed, all thinking England
was one or the other before the spectre of war had risen on
the horizon. The occasion but declared the man.
We may regret this tendency on both sides to fight for an
idea — regret that the practical sense of Englishmen did not
assert itself in a feasible compromise, especially in view of the
results for both sides in turn. In declaring war, Charles was
in reality signing his own death warrant ; in throwing down
the gauntlet to the king on behalf of the supremacy of
Parliament, his opponents were in reality inviting the collapse
of Parliamentary government and the advent of the military
dictator. Such was to be the outcome of the war, but this
outcome was as yet unperceived, and since the situation for
various reasons rendered conflict inevitable, it was well that
this very tendency to fight for an idea was present to invest
the struggle with a grandeur which it would not otherwise
have possessed. On the field of battle there was, on both
sides, at least the factor of moral conviction to mitigate the
horrors of brutal passion. And to step from the assembly at
Westminster, where lawyers are garrulously quoting from old

Mixed Motives. 379
legal documents in defence of rights and liberties, and emerge
on the battlefield, where Cavalier and Roundhead are alike
grimly struggling for convictions dearer than life, is to pass
from the prosaic to the sublime. War is a horrible thing, but
a war of this kind has at least its redeeming features.
At the same time this is only one side of the war. It was,
after all, by no means exclusively a war of pure principle to
many of those engaged in it. Even in the Puritan camp
there were hypocrites and egotists, especially before the
magnetic force of Cromwell's personality had rallied in the
ranks of his Ironsides, " men of conscience, who knew what
they fought for." The Puritan, as we learn from the
correspondence of Nehemiah Wharton, managed to combine
a good deal of rough work with his sermon going and psalm
singing. He did his share of plundering equally with the
rowdy Cavalier, and if he did not, as a rule, swear and get
drunk, he could take pleasure in ill-treating Papists and
malignants and desecrating churches. At first, too, there
were undoubtedly a great many blackguards in Essex's
and Waller's armies. " On an impartial view of the sub
ject," remarks Mr Webb, editor of " A Military Memoir of
Colonel Birch," " there can be little doubt that, as to the
common man, the war let loose all the needy and disreputable
part of the population, particularly of London and the great
towns ; such as necessity compelled, or those whose disposi
tion led them to plunder and fight. Essex and Waller, but
particularly the latter . . . enrolled, under the name of the
defenders of a reformed policy and a pure religion, much of
the offscouring of the metropolis." " These were good, stout,
fighting men," notes Mrs Hutchinson of Sir John Gell's
Derbyshire regiment, " but the most licentious, ungovernable
wretches that belonged to the Parliament."
Similarly, the man of the mere Cavalier stamp — the man
who was fond of fighting for fighting's sake — naturally held
by the king. It was enough for such men that Charles had
raised his standard. They cared little or nothing for constitu
tional theories one way or the other. To fight in any quarrel
— in this case on the king's side — was a matter of course.
Every drunken brawler in England would brandish his sword
at once in response to the king's summons. The dislike

380 The Anti- Puritan Factor.
of Puritan narrowness was responsible for the adhesion of
others, who, while they might not relish royal autocracy, Epis
copal tyranny, relished a rigid Puritan democracy even less.
The narrow Calvinism of the Puritans was, in this respect,
a serious disadvantage to their cause, though, without it,
they would hardly have accomplished a revolution. The
religious belief of the men who carried out this revolu
tion had to be absolute, and their religion in such an age
could only be Calvinism. The doctrine of predestination
was the only fitting doctrine for those who defied even the
sentiment of traditional loyalty in their allegiance to the
God, whose elect they were. Their dour religious creed
was especially obnoxious to the Catholics, and the Catholics,
to whom Charles extended protection and toleration, at
the risk of embarrassing, if not alienating his Protestant
adherents, supported him to a man, wherever they were at
liberty to do so. Moreover, by its unbending attitude
towards the royal overtures for an accommodation, even after
the raising of the standard at Nottingham, Parliament did
its best to increase Charles' adherents on merely practical
grounds. It demanded that he should surrender his sup
porters to justice as traitors to the nation, and that their
property should be confiscated to indemnify its partisans for
their contributions to the Parliamentary cause. This im
politic threat was sufficient to send hundreds of recruits to
the royal camp. In defending the king, the Royalists were at
the same time defending their lives and their property.
Party adhesion was conditioned by geography as well as
by other considerations. Speaking generally, the north and
west sided with Charles, the east and south with the Parliament.
Within both divisions there were, of course, as we learn from
May's " History " and Warwick's " Memoirs," adherents ot
both parties. At Manchester, and in the cloth manufactur
ing towns of Yorkshire, for instance, the population was
mainly Puritan. At Oxford, in the south, it was largely
Royalist. But throughout the war, these two halves might,
with approximate correctness, be described as Royalist and
Parliamentary respectively. The Parliament had thus, from
the outset, the advantage of the support of the more popu
lous and wealthy part of the country, including the capital.

Preliminary Movements. 381
It had also an enormous advantage in the possession of
the fleet, which gave it the command of the sea, and enabled
it to hamper Charles' attempts to secure aid in men and
munitions from France, Holland, Denmark. It was, conse
quently, confident of an easy and speedy victory.
On the other hand, the country gentlemen and their
retainers counted with equal confidence on scattering, at the
first onset, the plebeian horde of yeomen and artisans who
dared to defy their sovereign and provoke destruction at
their hands. To Charles and his Cavaliers, the Puritans
appeared simply as anarchists — " Brownists, Anabaptists, and
Atheists who desire to destroy both Church and State." Thus
Charles himself described them in a speech to his army, on
the 19th September, during the march between Wellington
and Stafford.
Charles deflected his course southwards from Notting
ham, which he left on the 1 3th September, towards the Welsh
border — to Shrewsbury and Chester — in order to gain recruits
before venturing to try conclusions with Essex, who was
advancing northwards towards Northampton. It was not
till the 1 2th of October that he began the march on London,
though troops of cavalry, under Rupert and Byron, had
already penetrated as far as Oxford and Worcester, and dealt
the first successful blow of the war at one of Essex's outposts
at Powick Bridge, near the latter city (23rd September). By
the 22nd, he had reached Edgcott in Warwickshire, and here
he learned that Essex, who had moved from Northampton to
Worcester, was at Kineton, only a few miles to the west
wards. He therefore swerved aside, and marshalled his
army in three divisions — cavalry on the right and left wings,
infantry in the centre — on Edgehill slope, facing northwards
towards Kineton. On the plain below, the Parliamentary
army, which was weak in cavalry, awaited the attack in the
same formation. Unfortunately for the sanguine expectations
of a decisive Royalist victory", the impetuosity of Rupert and
Wilmot, who respectively commanded the Royalist cavalry
on the right and left, turned an initial success into a virtual
defeat. Rupert and Wilmot scattered the greater part of the
Parliamentary horse at the first shock, but they made the
mistake of pursuing them far beyond the battlefield till they

382 Edgehill Battle.
were checked by Hampden's and Grantham's regiments, who,
with the greater part of Essex's artillery, were a day's march
in the rear. Meanwhile, in the main struggle between the
two centres, the Parliamentary infantry were proving their
mettle, and not only repulsed the Royalist charge, and routed
the greater part of the Royalist infantry with severe loss, but
captured the royal standard and the Royalist commander-in-
chief, Lord Lindsey, who was mortally wounded. Towards
dusk the impetuous Rupert returned, to discover that, with
stout Puritan levies as an enemy, generalship as well as dash
was necessary to win a battle. The battle was, too, not with
out its lessons to the other side, especially to Cromwell, who
saw in the rout of the Parliamentary cavalry, a warning
which might be inaudible to duller ears. We must, he told
his cousin Hampden, get men of spirit to fight in the cause,
of equal spirit with the dashing cavaliers that had scattered
the Parliamentary horsemen like chaff. To find such men
Cromwell went home to Huntingdon, with what results the
following campaign was to show.
A decisive Parliamentary victory Edgehill battle was not.
Both sides, indeed, claimed the advantage, and the historian is
at liberty to give the credit of success, or the discredit of
failure, to both in turn. Both had, at any rate, had enough of
it for the present. Charles continued his march southwards
unmolested, whilst Essex moved on London at a respectful
distance eastwards. He occupied Oxford and took Brentford,
but abandoned the attempt to force an entrance into the
capital on the 13th November in the teeth of the superior
force which Essex had marshalled on Turnham Green, and
retired on Reading and Oxford. If he had failed in his main
object — the capture of London — he could reassure himself
with the hope that with the concentrated strength of the west,
where Hopton had nipped a feeble Parliamentary rising in the
bud, and of the north, where Newcastle had, on the whole, had
the best of it in some skirmishes against Lord Fairfax and
Hotham, he might overwhelm the capital and end the war as
the result of a fresh campaign.
While preparing for a fresh struggle by organising, or
" associating " groups of counties for offence or defence, both
sides attempted to forestall the renewal of hostilities by

Irreconcilable Contentions. 3^3
negotiation. The Parliament continued to urge the king to
disband his army and return to London, and Charles reiterated
his desire to end the war. Unfortunately there was really no
common ground of accommodation between the two parties,
and Pym and the more astute antagonists of Charles were
shrewd enough to see this, in opposition to the more moderate
or peace party. The Parliament persisted in the assumption
that it alone represented the legal authority of the State, and
that all who adhered to Charles were rebels and traitors,
deserving of forfeiture and death. Charles, on his side, no less
obstinately regarded it as a rebel faction which, by trickery
and treachery, had defied the sovereign authority, and was
striving to subject both him and the nation to its tyranny.
He had no notion of the newer and far-reaching ideas which
he was too ingenuous, too self-sufficient to grasp, far less to
appreciate. The two conceptions of the rights and the wrongs
of the case were thus radically irreconcilable. In the war of
Declarations and counter-Declarations, which both sides main
tained at intervals throughout the conflict in the field, both
argued on an assumption which put effective negotiation out
of court. Charles invariably disclaimed the accusation that
he was making war on Parliament, and declined to recognise
the claim of the assembly at Westminster to be the Parlia
ment. His opponents as strenuously insisted that they were
not making war on the king, were, in fact, seeking to vindicate
his authority as expressed in Parliament, free him from the
machinations of a malign ,party of traitors. A great part of
this wordy warfare is concerned with the assertion of these
finical assumptions. What ! cried Charles, you levy troops
and attack my army, and yet profess that you are not attack
ing me! How, retorted the Parliament, can your majesty
declare that you are not making war on the Parliament in
fighting against the forces raised by it in defence of its rights,
and of the lawful authority which it exercises in the State ?
This interchange of invective, founded on a misconception
which neither side would admit or abandon, certainly did not
tend to smooth the way to an effectual understanding. It
might irritate ; it could not reconcile. Both made the mis
take of fastening on the weak point of the adversary's
argument, while shutting their eyes to the weak point of its

384 A Futile Diplomatic Campaign.
own. The Parliament could adduce strong evidence to show
that Charles was in arms against it, and disprove that it was a
faction " of twelve or twenty factious, seditious persons." On
the other hand, Charles could, with equal force, appeal to fact
to demonstrate that, in attacking the forces raised by him, the
Parliamentary army was indubitably attacking him.
Nevertheless, he expressed his readiness to reopen the
negotiations already begun at Colebrook before the retreat
to Oxford, and a diplomatic campaign progressed heavily
throughout the months of February, March, April 1643. It
was in the circumstances doomed to failure. If two people
quarrel, and each determines to misunderstand the other, no
amount of letter-writing will bring them to shake hands. The
letter-writing will only whet the spirit of recrimination. What
the Parliament was really driving at was the complete sub
mission of the king, whatever his scruples or convictions might
be. What Charles would not see was the right of resistance
claimed, on a variety of grounds, by what was at least a Parlia
mentary majority, which his own illegalities and mistakes as a
ruler had driven to rebellion. " I see no great hope of an
accommodation," wrote M. de Brunelles to Burlamachi, " for
the king wishes to make it as a king, and the Parliament is
not willing to retract one of the demands they have made."
In the preamble of the Fourteen Propositions which the Par
liament empowered its commissioners to carry to Oxford in
the end of January 1643, Charles was told, as usual, that he
was responsible for the war, and that it lay with him to stop
it. To this end he must agree to a general disbandment of
forces and return to London. He must leave " delinquents "
to be tried by Parliament, must disarm Papists and agree to
the various stringent measures against Popery, including even
the education of the children of Papists by Protestant teachers !
He must assent to the Root and Branch Bill and the Bill for
an Assembly of Divines, and promise to accept such a form of
Church government as Parliament, in consultation with the
Assembly, should decree. He must further allow Parliament
to settle the militia as it should see fit, accept its nominees
for all great judicial offices, restore all justices of the peace
deprived without consent of Parliament, and deprive those to
whom Parliament took exception, pass a Bill to ensure the

Propositions and Counter-Propositions. 385
privileges of Parliament against a repetition of the attempt on
the five members, indemnify those who had incurred charges
in the Parliamentary cause, except from the general pardon
those whom Parliament might name, particularly the Earl of
Newcastle and Lord Digby, and finally, restore all Members
of Parliament who had been removed from office and employ
ment in consequence of their adhesion to the Parliament.
Assuredly a very sanguine document ! Had Essex suc
ceeded in annihilating the royal army at Edgehill, and taken
Charles prisoner, the Parliament might have had some justifi
cation for submitting such excessive demands. But Charles
had not only claimed the victory ; he had carried the war
almost to the gates of the capital itself. To treat him in
this lordly fashion as if he were a beaten man, to insist on
the full recognition of the justice of the Parliamentary cause,
was to make negotiation a mere farce. At this stage of the
conflict Charles could not possibly treat on such terms. " No
less power than His who made the world of nothing," wrote
he to Ormonde, " can draw peace out of these articles." It
is hardly surprising, therefore, that he told the queen in a
letter, which, unfortunately for him, fell into the Parliament's
hands, that his only object in continuing the negotiations was
to put his adversaries in the wrong before the nation, and
that he had other designs on hand than that of peace.
In professing not only that Charles was utterly in the
wrong, but that he had suffered a crushing reverse, and must
surrender at discretion, the Parliament failed to look the real
facts in the face. Unfortunately, Charles' reply shows the
same propensity to look at the situation from an unreal point
of view. He rebutted all responsibility for the war, laid the
blame on his opponents, and formulated counter-propositions,
to which he must have known they could not agree. The
Parliament, he insisted, must forthwith restore to him his
revenue, navy, magazines, &c, of which it had taken forcible
possession, must renounce all measures contrary to the known
laws of the land and his majesty's sovereignty, to which he
had not assented, must disclaim the exercise of the powers
it had assumed, must vindicate the Book of Common Prayer
from the aspersions of Brownists, Anabaptists, and other
sectaries, must agree to the trial of all exempted persons by
VOL. III. 2 B

386 Charles and His Advisers.
their peers, in accordance with the laws of the land, and
meanwhile refrain from further hostilities.
Fully two months were wasted in the discussion of these
(for the most part) impossible propositions, and counter-pro
positions. The discussion served only to show both sides
once more that it really was a question of mastery, and that
the sword alone could decide it. The Parliamentary Com
missioners failed even to arrange a truce, though such a
cessation, as it was called, would evidently have been more
beneficial to Charles than to his opponents, who could ill
afford to accustom the rank and file of the Parliamentary
armies to the luxury of even a temporary peace. Charles,
indeed, according to Whitelocke, one of the Commissioners,
showed himself both courteous and reasonable in argument.
" In this treaty the king manifested his great abilities, strength
of reason, and quickness of apprehension with much patience
in hearing what was objected against him ; wherein he allowed
all freedom, and would himself sum up the arguments, and
give a most clear judgment upon them." As the result of
their close intercourse, the Commissioner hazards the opinion
that if he had followed his own judgment, he and his fellow-
Commissioners might have been able to come to a feasible
arrangement. " His unhappiness was that he had a better
opinion of others' judgments than of his own, though they
were weaker than his own, and of this the Parliament Com
missioners had experience to their great trouble." In such
indecisive moments he was overruled by the war party, led
by men like Lord Bristol, who, in opposition to the Earl of
Dorset, insisted on the rights of prerogative, and on a vigorous
prosecution of the war in its defence. Bristol undoubtedly
expressed the feeling of the large majority of his fellow-
Cavaliers, though there were not a few in addition to Dorset
and Lord Savile who would fain "have had no conquest on
either side," and had no desire " to see the ruin of an English
Parliament," as Savile wrote to Lady Temple (February
1643). Bristol drew on his experience as ambassador to Spain,
which, with no great credit to his power of observation or
his knowledge of Spanish history, he held up as the model
of a properly governed country. "In Spain," cried he,
" where the long time I resided there as ambassador afforded

His Ultimatum to Parliament. 387
me privilege to be well acquainted with the state of that
kingdom, in no age or record can scarcely be found mention
of intestine or civil wars. . . . The reason is because they
are truly subjects and their sovereign truly a sovereign.
And since the State here will neither be so to the king, nor
suffer the king to be so to them, my reason tells me they
should be compelled to it. My opinion, therefore, is that
his majesty neither propound to the Parliament or receive
from them any conditions for peace, but such as shall ab
solutely comply with the regal dignity and prerogative (which
God and succession hath allowed him), and such as may be
no ,way prejudicial to us or our estates. We have an army
on foot ; a braver the sun never shone on ; an army that
by force can compel that which fair words cannot effect"
The tedious negotiations reached a crisis on the 12th
April. On that day Charles, at the instigation of the war
party and in spite of the earnest entreaties of the Commis
sioners, despatched what was practically an ultimatum to
the two Houses. They must, he told them in plain terms,
restore his revenues, ships, and forts, as stipulated in his
first proposal, must consent to the restitution of all members,
including even the bishops, excluded from their seats and
votes since the ist January 1642, on account of their ad
herence to the king, and must agree to the removal of the
Parliament to some place, at least twenty miles distant from
London, on the ground that it was not a free assembly. In
that case he would disband his army, return to their midst,
and give his assent to whatever Bills they should propose
for the real good of his subjects. If not, the war must
continue, and the Parliament must take the consequences.
To this ultimatum the Lords and Commons at West
minster retorted on the 15th by recalling their Commissioners.
Till one side or the other was crushed the situation did not
admit of any other conclusion. It is useless to try to show
the feasibility of any other alternative. At this stage the
sword alone could do that.
The arrival of the queen at Bridlington on the Yorkshire
coast on the 22nd February, with a supply of arms and
ammunition from Holland, strengthened the arguments of the
war party, and it was with high hope of success that Charles

388 Renewed Fighting.
recommenced the struggle in earnest in the spring of 1643.
His plan of campaign was certainly both skilful and promising.
An irresistible concentration of the Royalist forces should
isolate the capital, crush its power of resistance, and make
Charles undisputed master of England once more. He him
self should march from the midlands, Hopton should move
eastwards through the southern, Newcastle southwards
through the eastern counties, crushing resistance and gather
ing strength by the way, and thus combine to enable his
majesty to dictate terms at Whitehall to a terror-stricken
city. It looked for a time as if this threefold combination
might succeed. Essex, indeed, made a dash on Reading, and
cannonaded it into surrender in the end of April. Waller,
skirmishing in the west, relieved Gloucester and took Here
ford (25th April). Sir William Brereton had some successes
in Cheshire. Lord Brooke captured Lichfield, and, after his
death, Sir John Gell compelled the defenders of the cathedral
close to surrender (4th March). Fairfax, in Yorkshire,
stormed Wakefield (21st May), and Cromwell began his
career of victory with several successful skirmishes in Suffolk
and Lincoln. But Essex failed to push his advantage, and
gave Prince Rupert the opportunity to rout a division of his
army at Chalgrove Field in Buckinghamshire (18th June),
where Hampden was mortally wounded, and to follow up his
success by the seizure of Bristol (26th July). Meanwhile
Essex's subordinates had suffered a series of reverses in the
west at the hands of Hopton and his lieutenants, Grenville
and Prince Maurice, whose superior generalship told de
cisively against Lord Stamford at Stratton (16th May),
Waller at Lansdowne (5th July), and Waller again at
Round way Down (13th July). These reverses were followed
by the retreat of Waller, and the advance of Hopton east
wards as far as Hampshire, where he was ultimately checked
by the Parliamentary general. Plymouth was almost the
only town that held out for the Parliament in the south-west.
Essex, too, had been compelled by mutiny and sickness
among his troops to relinquish his design against Oxford and
draw back towards the capital, and advised the Parliament to
make peace. His lack of initiative and vigour, and the

First Battle of Newbury. 389
friction between him and Waller, seemed likely to make
Charles' junction with Hopton before the capital an easy
undertaking. "Thus," notes May, "seemed the Parliament
sunk beyond any hope of recovery, and was so believed by
many men. The king was possessed of all the western
counties, from the furthest part of Cornwall, and from there
northwards as far as the borders of Scotland. His armies
were full and flourishing, free to march whither they pleased,
and enough to be divided for several exploits." Charles,
however, did not feel himself strong enough to follow Essex
southwards, though May does not hesitate to assert that
a vigorous march on London would probably, at that juncture,
have resulted in its capture, in spite of hurriedly constructed
entrenchments. He moved westwards to attack Gloucester,
as a preliminary to the advance on the capital. The defence
of Gloucester, which was stubbornly held by Massey with a
small force against overwhelming numbers, proved the
turning-point in the tide of Parliamentary disaster in the
south. It enabled Essex to hurry to its relief, and his
approach in the beginning of September forced Charles to
raise the siege and retire. On the return march, by way of
Hungerford and Newbury, he found his passage blocked by
the king in person at the latter place, and here, on the 20th
September, was fought the first battle of Newbury. For
fully twelve hours — from seven in the morning till sundown —
Essex's regiments, horse and foot, struggled with grim inten
sity to cleave the living wall of Royalist cavalry and infantry
that confronted them. There was no shrinking this time,
as at Edgehill, of the Parliamentary horsemen, under Bal
four and Stapleton ; the London trained bands, under
Skippon, acquitted themselves like veterans as the fight surged
to and fro ; and artillery, cavalry, musketeers, pikemen
emulated one another in attack or defence. The seizure of a
hill, commanding the field of battle, provided a vantage
ground which contributed, in addition to the determined
valour with which they pressed the attack on the lower
ground, to decide the struggle in their favour. As the result
of their discipline and bravery, if they had not won a
decisive victory, they had, at the close of the bloody day,
made such an impression on the Royalist ranks that Charles

390 Parliamentary Disasters.
resolved to retreat and leave the road to Reading open. His
ammunition was spent, and he had lost too many officers and
men to risk a second encounter on the morrow. Among those
whom he was called on to lament was Falkland, who, civilian
though he was, had plunged into the thickest of the battle, to
find rest from that strife of which his spirit was weary.
In the north, however, the situation had become very
grave. Lord Fairfax's victory at Wakefield was followed by
a series of crushing blows to the Parliamentary cause. " It
seemed," in the quaint language of May, " like a lightening
before death, for not long after, these forces were quite broken
by the Earl of Newcastle, whose greatness overspread those
countries." On the last day of June Fairfax was badly beaten
by Newcastle at Adwalton Moor, near Bradford. Worse
still, the Hothams, father and son, turned traitors, and though
their treachery was frustrated in time by their prompt arrest,
Fairfax, Manchester, and Cromwell were hard put to it to
prevent the conquest of the eastern counties. Gainsborough
was won and lost to the Parliament, Hull itself besieged.
The Royalists even penetrated into Norfolk, and captured
Lynne ; whilst a number of regiments, which the Cessation,
negotiated by Ormonde with the Irish Catholic confederates,
had set free for service in England, landed in Flintshire to
threaten further disaster in the north-west. It was only by
the most strenuous efforts that Manchester, commander of the
Eastern Association army, and Cromwell, his lieutenant,
succeeded in the autumn in checking the Royalist advance, by
the victory of Winceby (nth October) and raising the siege
of Hull ; while Sir Thomas Fairfax ultimately retrieved the
situation in the north-west by that of Nantwich, over Lord
Byron (25th January 1644).
As the result of these nine months' campaigning, the
balance of advantage • decidedly lay with Charles. The Par
liament was indisputably supreme only within a short radius
of London and a limited strip along the southern and eastern
coasts. Everywhere else — in the midlands, in the north, in
the west — the royal star was in the ascendant. If Charles
had failed to carry out his concentration, he had at least
made considerable progress towards its realisation. Hull,
Gloucester, and Plymouth, among the larger cities, were the

Danger of Parliamentary Cause. 39 *
only strongholds of the Parliamentary cause outside London.
Another campaign bade fair to witness their reduction, and to
bring the Royalist armies triumphantly into the Parliamentary
preserve. So low had the hope of Parliamentary success
fallen before the relief of Gloucester that peace propositions,
vastly more humble than those sent to Oxford in the previous
February, were passed by the Lords in the beginning of
August, and only rejected by a narrow majority in the
Commons. The month of August was, in truth, the nadir of
the Parliamentary cause.
SOURCES. — Lords' Journals, v. and vi. ; Commons' Jour
nals, ii. and iii. ; State Papers (Domestic), edited by W. D.
Hamilton (1641-43) ; Whitelocke's Memorials of English
Affairs (1682); Parliamentary History, iii.; Fairfax Corre
spondence, edited by R. Bell, i. (1849); Cromwell's Letters
and Speeches, with Elucidations by Carlyle (2nd edition) ;
May's History of the Parliament which began 3rd November
1640 (Clarendon Press, 1854); Letters of Nath. Wharton
in Archaeologia, xxv. ; Clarendon's History of the Rebellion ;
Carte, Collection of Original Letters (Ormonde Papers), i.
(1739); Memoirs of Ludlow, i. (1688, and edition by Firth);
Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson, by his Widow, edited by Firth
(1885); Military Memoir of Col. John Birch, written by
his secretary Roe, edited by Webb for the Camden Society
(x873) 5 Sir Philip Warwick (Secretary to Charles I.), Memoirs
of the Reign of Charles I. (1702); Memoirs of Denzil, Lord
Hollis (1699). The three first-mentioned memoirs give an
account of military operations from the Parliamentary, the
two latter from the Royalist point of view. Gardiner, Docu
ments of the Puritan Revolution, and, History of the Great
Civil War (edition 1901). Mr Gardiner has made use of
manuscript sources, such as Yonge's Diary (Add. MSS.,
18,778-9) and Whitacre's Diary (Add. MSS., 31,116). Sanford,
Studies of the Great Rebellion (1858); Firth, Cromwell ( 1 900) ;
Markham, Life of Lord Fairfax (the Sir Thomas Fairfax of
the earlier campaigns) (1870); Webb, Memorials of the Civil
War, as it affected Hereford and adjacent Counties, i. (1879) ;
Warburton, Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers
(1849), based on the Rupert Correspondence.

CHAPTER XVIII.
The Parliament and the Scots — Solemn League
and Covenant (1643).
The causes of the Parliamentary ill-success were chiefly lack
of money, lack of brains, lack of organisation. The Parliament
starved its armies, and the Lord-General Essex, who could
fight an indecisive battle on occasion, had not the genius to
cope with starvation. He was, moreover, lacking in initiative,
though well meaning, and was disposed in the circumstances
to negotiate rather than fight. Such a general was ill fitted
to master such a situation, with pushful men like Rupert and
Hopton for antagonists. What the Parliament needed was
a commander-in-chief of the stamp of a Sir Thomas Fairfax
or a Cromwell. But the younger Fairfax and Cromwell were
as yet but the subordinates of Essex's subordinates, Lord
Fairfax and the Earl of Manchester, and genius directed by
mediocrity could not make campaigns successful. The lack
of money would, however, have hampered, if not overwhelmed
even genius. The Parliament had, indeed, had the advantage
at the outset in the matter of income. It had the wealth of
London and most of the great trading ports at its back, but
the growing demands for money contributions and the growing
stagnation of trade increased the difficulty of making due
capital out of this advantage. Moreover, financial genius was
as conspicuous by its absence as military genius, and to judge
from the outcry of the Parliamentary generals, the financial
administration was pitiable. The correspondence of the
generals with the Committee of Public Safety and others
throughout 1643 emphasises again and again the difficulty
of keeping men in the field and carrying on operations on
an empty war-chest. Essex's statement to Parliament, for
instance, in the end of July, reveals a condition of complete

Causes of Parliament's Lack of Success. 393
destitution. Essex was prone to complain instead of acting,
was, too, as eager for an accommodation as a battle, for he
was one of many who, at the commencement of the contest,
would fain have patched up a peace at the earliest possible
moment. But Fairfax and even Cromwell, who were assuredly
no Jeremiahs, swelled at times the chorus of distress. " My
lords," we find Lord Fairfax writing in December 1642, "the
condition of this army ... I fear will very suddenly grow
worse, if not utterly broken up, and that especially for want
of money, I having not above a week's pay provided, and no
visible means left to raise maintenance for them, unless I
should give the soldiers free quarters upon the country — a
cure, in my conception, as dangerous as the disease, and,
peradventure, not possible to be effected, if the enemy be
still master of the field and cut off our men as they go about
to levy sustenance, which they may do, and yet not be able to
beat up our quarters. . . . The want of money," he added
desperately, " will force us to disband within ten days. . . .
I beseech your lordships seriously to consider it, and send
such speedy supplies of men and money as will enable me
to go forward in the service, which I shall not fail to do with
a constant fidelity."
" I beseech you," wrote Cromwell incisively, in the end of
May 1643, to the Mayor of Colchester, "hasten the supply
to us ; forget not money. I press not hard ; though I do so
need, that, I assure you, the foot and dragooners are ready to
mutiny. Lay not too much upon the back of a poor gentle
man, who desires, without much noise, to lay down his life and
bleed the last drop to serve the cause and you. I ask not
your money for myself; if that were my end and hope, viz.,
the pay of my place, I would not open my mouth at this
time. I desire to deny myself; but others will not be satisfied.
I beseech you hasten supplies. Forget not your prayers."
Three and a half months later Cromwell was in even greater
straits. "Of all men," wrote he, on the nth September, to
Oliver St John, " I should not trouble you with money matters,
did not the heavy necessities my troops are in press upon me
beyond measure. I am neglected exceedingly." " Our army,"
wrote Hampden to Barrington just before the fatal Chalgrove
Field, " wants both men and money."

394 Lack of Organisation and Co-operation.
Mere enthusiasm, such as breathes in every word and act
of a Cromwell, minus organisation, could not win victories for
liberties and privileges. With the exception of Cromwell, who
had done yeoman service in organising the defence of the
eastern counties and thus checking Newcastle's advance south
wards, the gift of combination was exercised chiefly on paper.
" It's no longer disputing," wrote Cromwell to the Committee
of the Eastern Association at Cambridge on 6th August 1643,
" but out instantly all you can. ... I beseech you spare not,
but be expeditious and industrious. . . . Neglect no means."
The real leaders of the Parliamentary army had, in truth, still
to be formed in the school of Cromwell. There was, indeed,
considerable activity in the early part of the campaign of 1643
on the part of Essex, Waller, Fairfax, and their lieutenants,
but there was a lack of cohesion, co-operation. The principal
commanders did not heartily work together. Jealousy, for
instance, rasped the relations of the Fairfaxes and the
Hothams, and the ill-will between them culminated at last
in the treachery of the latter. The friction between Essex
and Waller, who was ambitious of an independent command,
lamed the activity of both until the Parliament succeeded in
negotiating reconciliation and harmony. There was, too, bitter
feud between the Earl of Manchester and Lord Willoughby,
who quarrelled somewhat later over the supreme command
of the forces in Lincolnshire. Armies led by generals who
openly or furtively fought with one another for supremacy,
instead of combining against the enemy, could only gain
a chance success. Worse still, there was an absence of co
operation not only between the_ various armies, but between
the various divisions of the same army, while mutiny, desertion,
lack of confidence still further diminished their offensive power.
For long the strength of numbers, cohesion, energy, supply,
and, very important, a well-conceived general plan of cam
paign, were on the side of the king, and the wonder is that
the Parliamentary generals succeeded, almost in spite of them
selves, in at least staving off irreparable disaster. Fortunately
for them, the Royalist leaders in turn took to quarrelling after
the first flush of victory. The personal animosities of Rupert
and Hertford, Maurice and Carnarvon contributed to retard
the forward movement after the way seemed to have been

The Puritan Confidence in God. 395
cleared by the collapse of the Parliamentary armies in June
and July. Charles had also difficulties of supply to contend
with, though he had the resources of the great landowners to
draw on and had obtained timely aid from abroad in con
sequence of the queen's -exertions. Moreover, the defence of
Gloucester, the battle of Newbury, the fight at Winceby
showed that, despite , incohesion, friction, inexperience, the
rank and file knew how to fight when it came to the pinch,
equally with the most dashing cavalier. There was no dis
graceful collapse in the presence of the enemy, no panic-
stricken running away as at Edgehill, no weakly tendency,
except in lukewarm districts, to throw up the cause in despair.
In the letters of men like Cromwell we already see the stern
purpose of the Puritan fighting man, and it needed only the
inspiration of genius to make this Puritan fighting man
irresistible against the proudest and most valiant devotee
of royalism. Men like Cromwell fought for God and the
Parliament in the passionate spirit of the Israelites of old
against the Philistines and the Amalekites. " God," wrote
Cromwell, after the fight at Grantham on 1 3th May, " hath
given us this evening a glorious victory over our enemies."
" It was a great mercy of God to us," was his comment on
Fairfax's success at Wakefield in the same month. "It hath
pleased the Lord to give your servant and soldiers a notable
victory now at Gainsborough," were the opening words of his
despatch to the Committee of the Eastern Association at
Cambridge, of date 31st July. "All will be lost, if God help
not," was the ejaculation wrung from him by the gloomy
situation a month before the victory at Winceby. "That
great God, who is the searcher of my heart," wrote Waller
to his antagonist Hopton before the battle of Lansdowne,
" knows with what a sad sense I go upon this service, and with
what a perfect hatred I detest this war without an enemy ; but
I look upon it as sent from God, and that is enough to silence
all passion in me." Essex, too, had as high a conception of
the cause as Cromwell or Waller, though he was not gifted
with the masterful qualities of the Huntingdon squire. " I
desire," wrote he, "such may appear in this cause as have
most interest in it, such of whose constancy and courage we
may be assured, men of religious lives and affections, fitted to

396" Remedial Measures of Parliament.
bear arms for truth and religion." The cause which to such
men was the cause of God was assuredly not lost, because the
soldiers who fought for it at Winceby and Gainsborough were
famishing for want of regular supplies or charging the enemy
in tatters. Fortunately for it, the Lords and Commons gradually
awoke to the fact that they must do something more practi
cal in the way of seconding Providence, than drawing up
declarations and passing resolutions. The defects which the
campaign had revealed demonstrated the remedies to be
applied. The first requisite was money. Even Providence
could not conduct a war by means of prayers and pious
wishes, and the mere conviction of the righteousness of the
cause. Nor would it do to trust to gifts and voluntary loans,
as Parliament was disposed to do at the commencement of
the struggle. Such gifts and loans as the City chiefly had
furnished had been consumed as fast as they came in, and
still the generals continued to send in despairing, importuning
appeals for money. The Lords and Commons had, therefore,
in response to their urgent appeals, resolved as early as
November 1642 to raise compulsory contributions by their
own authority, to assess all London citizens who had refused
to contribute or had done so insufficiently (29th November
1642). They claimed to exercise the right of taxation,
whether the king assented or not.
Charles strongly denounced the resolution as illegal.
Illegal it was from the constitutional point of view, but in
revolutionary times the constitution must take care of itself,
and his expedient of imposing taxes on his own behalf was
no less illegal. There could, in fact, be no longer any talk of
legality except in the academic sense, though both sides con
tinued so to talk when it suited them. Pym, at least, was
under no illusion as to the necessity of the case. The law,
said he, in answer to the sticklers for constitutional form, is
only for " settled times."
It was a severe test to apply to the loyalty of the
champions of liberty, and there were numerous petitions and
even demonstrations in the capital against the burden of pay
ing for rights and liberties. There were, however, harder
tests to come, which only the confident strength of Puritan

Fiscal and other Expedients. 397
conviction made it safe to venture. On the 16th January
1643, Parliament extended the assessment to a number of
the counties. Some weeks later it made every county of
England liable to furnish a stipulated weekly sum, and as
the prospect of a successful issue of the peace negotiations
at Oxford diminished, it did not hesitate to confiscate the
estates of all " delinquents " or Royalists (27th March). It
even ultimutely (July) accepted Pym's proposal to impose an
excise on all commodities bought and sold, and authorised
forced loans (August and October) — a proposal which, if
made by Charles fifteen years before would have convulsed
the Houses with denunciations of tyranny and appeals to
the sacred rights of property. Nothing can better demon
strate the strenuous devotion to the cause of rights and
liberties than this acquiescence, on the part of men to whom
legality was a passion, in expedients at which the law stood
aghast. Organisation as well as taxation was necessary if disaster
was to be transformed into victory. The county had proved
insufficient as a military unit in a contest in which the whole
kingdom was involved, and which demanded concerted action.
The Lords and Commons resolved, therefore, to discard usage
and substitute for the county the association of counties. In
so doing they were merely taking a leaf out of the Royalist
book. " The Lords and Commons, now in Parliament assembled,"
we read in one of the earlier of these declarations, " being cer
tainly informed that Papists and other wicked, ill-informed
persons have traitorously combined together, and entered into
associations, &c," do accordingly order that certain counties
named " shall and may associate themselves, and mutually
aid, succour, and assist one another in the mutual defence
and preservation of themselves" (10th December 1642). To
this end the midland, northern, eastern, and south-eastern
counties were grouped under separate' commanders in sub
ordination to the Lord-General, and authorised to levy men,
embody an army, raise taxes, and wage war against the
enemy. The responsibility for the maintenance of these forces
was entrusted to a committee of the chief persons in each
group.

398 Associations and Standing Army.
Of these associations the most famous and the most
enduring was the Eastern, which comprised the counties of
Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Hertford, to which
Huntingdon and Lincoln were subsequently added. Here
Puritan feeling was strong, and the common people, if not
a section of the gentry, with which Cromwell proceeded to
deal in his own drastic fashion, were, according to May,
enthusiastic champions of the Parliament from the outset.
It only needed the inspiring presence of Cromwell to kindle
this latent force into an activity whose strength never flagged
throughout the war. It was Cromwell and the yeomen of
the Eastern Association that saved the Parliamentary cause
in the autumn of 1643, and as these counties remained for
the most part outside the arena of hostilities, they became
the steady feeder of the Parliamentary army in men and
supplies. ,(
The trained band system, too, had broken down under the
strain of a protracted struggle. The London regiments had
fought like veterans at Edgehill and Newbury, but they did not
relish being kept for any length of time from their homes and
occupations, and when Waller, seven weeks after Newbury
battle, led them to the assault of Basing House, they left him
in the lurch, and made straight for home. Only a profes
sional army could obviate the disadvantage of such a risky
system, and the Lords and Commons made an attempt to
supply this desideratum by decreeing a standing army of
14,000 men (4th December 1643). The lack of money pre
vented the immediate realisation of this reform, but the
ordinance shows that its authors had at least hit on the true
remedy. The new model thus foreshadowed was ere long to
prove its efficacy in the hands of a Fairfax and a Cromwell.
Most effectual of all was the successful attempt to enlist
the co-operation of the Scots. Both sides had from an early
date competed for Scottish help, and in this competition the
Parliament ultimately had the best of it. To the Scottish
Presbyterians, Prelacy, whether within or without the land,
was an abomination, and the General Assembly had re
peatedly lifted up its testimony in support, on ecclesiastical
grounds, of the Parliamentary cause. "Who knoweth," we
read in the missive which Henderson drew up, and Johnstone

Parliament and the General Assembly. 399
of Warriston despatched from St Andrews in its name, on the
3rd August 1642, in answer to a Declaration of the English
Parliament, " but the Lord hath now some controversie with
England which will not be removed till first and before all
the worship of His Name and the government of His House
be settled according to His will ? " Not content with the over
throw of Episcopacy in Scotland, the Assembly contemplated
nothing less than a Presbyterian conquest of the Church of
England. " They conceived it," we read further in the same
Declaration, " to be acceptable to Almighty God that in all
his majesty's dominions there might be one Confession of
Faith, one Directory of Worship, one public Catechism, and
one form of Church government." Their reading of the
Divine will involved not only the suppression of Prelatists and
Papists, but of all sectaries whatsoever, in order that Presby
terianism might enjoy a monopoly in England as well as in
Scotland. Prelacy being merely " a human ordinance," it can
do no wrong to any man's conscience to abolish it by human
authority in favour of a system which is jure divino. Th'e
Assembly at this date was even naive enough to assume that
his majesty would not oppose this blessed work of reforma
tion, and it sent at the same time a request to the Scottish
Privy Council to join in a petition to this effect to his
majesty. How little the Scottish Presbyterians understood
the meaning of the word liberty is apparent from the extreme
rigidity of their creed and their discipline. Their creed con
tained the absolute substance of divine truth, their discipline
was tyrannical and extended even to the minutest details of
conduct. This tyranny over individual liberty might be a
salutary necessity on moral grounds, but it was often ex
ercised in an unenlightened spirit. How unenlightened it
was is evident from the fact that in Fife the authorities, with
the approbation of the clergy and apparently of the people,
burned no less than thirty wretched women as witches within
a few months.
The goodwill of the Assembly meant a very great deal.
To secure it was practically to gain Scotland, and the Lords
and Commons sent a hearty epistle in reply, thanking their
Scottish brethren for their interest in the spiritual welfare of
England, and intimating that they had passed a Bill for the

4°° Charles Competes for Scottish Alliance.
convocation of an Assembly of Divines to advise them as to
the means of bringing about a union of the two Churches.
They denounced the usurped authority of bishops, not only
as incompatible with true religion, but as a support of arbi
trary government. They had accordingly resolved to discard
Prelacy, and they invited them to send some godly and
learned divines to help the Assembly in its work of reforma
tion. From this promising beginning gradually took shape that
alliance, political and ecclesiastical, which was both to operate
an ecclesiastical revolution in England and contribute to the
triumph of the Parliamentary cause.
Charles, too, appreciated the importance of securing the
goodwill and co-operation of his Scottish subjects, and a
lengthy struggle ensued between the king and Parliament
for the victory in this superlatively important negotiation.
For Charles the struggle was from the outset a losing one.
Ecclesiastically, a large majority of the Lords and Commons
were in sympathy with Scottish opinion and sentiment. They
hated the bishops as the oppressors of Church and State.
These unlucky functionaries now occupied, in fact, the same
invidious position in England as their Scottish fellow-prelates
had occupied in Scotland in 1638-39. They were the abettors
of an unpopular system, which had contributed to goad a
large section of the nation into war. Charles stood forth as
their protector against their opponents, and it mattered not
that in this case the bishops had both law and tradition on
their side. The majority of the Parliament, if not the majority
of the people, had turned against them on political and ecclesi
astical grounds, and, on appealing to the Scots, that majority
could count on a sympathetic hearing from those to whom
Episcopacy was both theoretically and practically an abomina
tion, whether north or south of the Tweed. The appeal of
Charles, on the other hand, could not possibly produce the
same impression. A small section of the Scottish nobility,
led by Montrose and Aboyne, was ready even to draw the
sword on his behalf. Another section, led by Hamilton, was
busy intriguing, in the royal interest, to nullify the Parliament's
appeal and keep their countrymen out of the quarrel. The
spirit of the bulk of the nation that followed Argyll and

Fights a Losing Contest. 4°r
Johnstone was in accord with that of the Assembly, and on
this staunch Presbyterian majority, appeals to conscience in
defence of English Episcopacy, such as Charles made in his
reply to the petition of Assembly and Privy Council in favour
of the Parliament's ecclesiastical policy, were utterly wasted.
He was, he wrote, as anxious as Assembly or Privy Council
for unity of religion and uniformity of Church government
" in such a way as we in our conscience conceive to be best
for the flourishing estate of the true Protestant religion"
(26th August 1642). Whenever it pleased the Parliament to
submit any proposition on this subject, not at variance with
God's Word or the known laws of the land, he would be the
first to further it. A very different tone this from that of the
Parliamentary Declaration. Presbyterians only, in the view
of the Assembly, had a conscience. There could be no con
scientious scruples in the case of what was but •' a human
ordinance." And as against the Parliament, Charles was no
safe interpreter of " God's Word " or " the known laws of the
land." This sort of language, though it sounded reasonable
enough and contrasted with the Assembly's narrow dogmatism,
would never win him a single recruit. The Lords and Com
mons continued to improve their advantage by emphasising
the fact that Charles did not scruple to raise an army of
Papists in the north of England, and was busy negotiating for
the assistance of foreign powers, and by urging their Scottish
brethren to raise an army to guard the Border and assist them
in maintaining religion and liberties against these Papists,
English and foreign. (Declaration of Parliament to the sub
jects of Scotland, 7th November 1642.) To this Charles
replied with a message to the Scottish Privy Council, de
nouncing the Parliament as a set of rebels and sectaries,
reiterating his devotion to the Protestant religion, and requiring
the Council to vindicate his honour by publishing the Royalist
version of the situation. At the same time he sent an urgent
letter to the Marquess of Hamilton to use his influence to
counteract the machinations of his enemies. Hamilton suc
ceeded so far as to carry a resolution in the Council that the
message, and not the Declaration, should be published (20th
December). "This," says Baillie, "was a trumpet that
wakened us all out of our deep sleep." The Presbyterian
VOL. III. 2 C

402 Scottish Attempt at Mediation.
gentry and ministers who followed Argyll flocked to Edin
burgh to present a strongly worded petition complaining of
the unfairness of these tactics, which were fitted to breed
distrust and friction between the two kingdoms and jeopardise
uniformity of religion and Church government, and demand
ing the official printing of the Parliamentary Declaration.
Printed it was accordingly, in spite of a counter or " cross "
petition, engineered by the Hamilton and Traquair party —
the Banders or malignants, as they were called. The shifty
Hamilton, in whom Charles at this stage confided rather than
in the impulsive, bellicose Montrose, was no match in such a
business for so astute a tactician as Argyll.
Whilst the two sides were thus competing in Declarations
and counter-Declarations for Scottish assistance, it occurred
to the conservators of the treaty between the two nations to
try an attempt at mediation. They offered to send com
missioners for this purpose. The Parliament readily assented,
and sent a blank safe-conduct to be filled in by the names of
the Commissioners. Charles ultimately overcame his dislike
of such intervention and did likewise. The Commissioners
accordingly arrived at Oxford in February 1643. Loudon,
Lindsay, the Provost of Irvine, and Henderson (who brought
with him a petition from the General Assembly), came on a
bootless errand. Charles asked them what grounds they had
for interfering in this strife. Our duty to God and your
majesty, answered in effect the Commissioners. The disturb
ance of the peace in England is dangerous to the maintenance
of it in Scotland, and the eighth article of the Treaty of Paci
fication in favour of unity of religion warrants us in seeking
to bring about a reconciliation for the furtherance of this
object. Charles disclaimed any such warrant, and retorted
that it would better become them to resent the seditious de
clarations sent by the Parliament to Scotland than make them
a ground of interfering between him and his rebellious sub
jects. He would have none of their interference in English
ecclesiastical affairs, and further missives did not succeed in
shaking his determination or in bringing the Commissioners
any nearer to a practical result. The Commissioners had, in
fact, the worst of the argument. Charles' contention that if
the Scots assumed the right to settle their ecclesiastical affairs

Charles has the Best of the Argument. 403
for themselves, they should leave Englishmen and their
king to do the same, was unassailable, and the fact that the
Parliament desired their interference was no excuse in his
eyes, but rather the contrary. They might mean well both
by him and the Parliament by this intrusion, but the demand
for uniformity rendered its futility certain. Charles, who
only tolerated Presbyterianism. in Scotland, would not enter
tain for a moment the proposal for its establishment in
England. And even if he had been willing to do so, it was
for the people of England, as he told the Commissioners, to
settle the question for themselves. The Scots were called on
neither by treaty nor by any special qualification whatever to
interfere in the matter. And if the arguments of the Com
missioners were weak, the officious and self-sufficient refer
ences of the Assembly's petition to " the prelatical faction " in
England, and to uniformity on Presbyterian lines certainly
did not tend to strengthen them. He gave an even sharper
answer to Alexander Henderson than to Loudon and Lindsay.
What business have you to interfere ? was, in effect, all the
answer the petitioners got, and, we might add, in view of
the rabid tone of their petition, deserved to get. The fact of
this aggressive spirit on the part of the Scottish Assembly
towards the Anglican Church may be intelligible in the
light of the spirit of the times ; its principle was by no means
defensible. " We must profess that the petitioners, or the
General Assembly of our Church of Scotland, have not the
least authority or power to intermeddle or interfere in the
affairs of this Church or kingdom, which are settled and
established by the proper laws of this land, and till they
be altered by the same competent authority, cannot be in
veighed against," &c. There were still more cutting rebukes
of Presbyterian dogmatism and meddlesomeness before the
conclusion, in which the Scots were told to begin the work of
reformation at home, was reached. " We desire and require
the petitioners (as becomes good and pious preachers of the
Gospel) to use their utmost endeavours to compose any dis
tinctions of opinion, or misunderstandings which may by the
faction of some turbulent persons " (glancing apparently at
Argyll, Johnstone, and other Scottish supporters of the Parlia
ment) " be raised in the minds of our good subjects of that

404 His Self-Condemnation.
our kingdom, and to infuse into them a true sense of charity,
obedience, and humility — the great principles of the Christian
religion — that they may not suffer themselves to be trans
ported with things they do not understand, or think them
selves concerned in the government of another kingdom,
because it is not according to the customs of that in which
they live," &c.
Against such spirited and not unmerited retorts the Com
missioners could make no headway. Charles flatly refused,
too, to allow them to proceed to London to continue the
negotiation with the Parliament, and they were fain to return
in April with the tale of their failure to Scotland. He forgot,
however, that in rebuking these meddlesome Scots, he was at
the same time condemning his own former policy towards Scot
land. But five years before, he and Laud had presumed not
only to intervene in Scottish ecclesiastical affairs over the
heads of both Assembly and Parliament, but to force an alien
ecclesiastical system on an unwilling people, on the principle
that what was good for England was good for Scotland. He
had, in truth, a greater capacity for imagining himself in the
right, in things ecclesiastical as in other things, than even the
narrowest Scottish Presbyterian. He forgot, too, that if this
style of argument was from the national point of view very
forcible, it was not fitted to gain him adherents in Presby
terian Scotland, and that it certainly was fitted to confirm it
in its preference for the Parliamentary cause. " This policie,"
notes Baillie, " was like the rest of our unhappie malcontents'
wisdome, extreamlie foolish ; for it was verie much for the
king's ends to have given to our Commissioners far better
words, and a more pleasant countenance." Besides, it had
become the settled conviction of Presbyterian Scotland that
if Charles succeeded in overpowering the Parliament, the
cause, for which the Scots had themselves taken arms, would,
despite all protestations to the contrary, be in the utmost
jeopardy. Its interest was, it was convinced, identical with
that of the Parliament. " We believe," wrote Baillie, as early
as the 28th May 1642, " that none can be so blind but they
see clearly, (if) the courtiers, for any cause, can get this Par
liament of England overthrown by forces, either at home
or abroad, that all either they have done or our Parliament

Convention of Scottish Estates. 4° 5
has done alreadie, or whatever any Parliament should mint
(attempt) to do hereafter, is not worth a fig."
In vain, therefore, the Declaration which he penned to his
loving Scottish subjects in the following May in denunciation
of the intrigues among them 'of the faction of seditious
sectaries at Westminster, and in exposure of its lying asser
tions and insinuations at his expense. The retort of the
Council, the Conservators of the Treaty, and the Commis
sioners for Public Burdens was to call a Convention of Estates
without asking his majesty's leave or paying the slightest
attention to his majesty's letter limiting its deliberations to
merely fiscal matters, such as the grant of supply for the
support of the Scottish army in Ireland or the speedy pay
ment of the Brotherly Assistance from England. From this
Convention, which met on the 22nd June, Hamilton and his
few adherents withdrew by way of protest ; but the only effect
of their withdrawal was to weed out of it the few supporters
of the Royalist cause. Thus purged, it accorded to the Com
missioners of the Lords and Commons, who arrived at the
beginning of August, the most cordial of welcomes. The
discovery of Charles' negotiations with the Irish Confederates
for the purpose of setting free the English army in Ireland
for service in England, made the welcome all the more
hearty. These negotiations were, it appeared, mixed up with
a plot to overwhelm Monroe's Scottish army in Ulster and
bring about a rising in Scotland for the king. The news,
which did not lose in circumstantiality in the telling, set Pres
byterian Scotland on fire. The Scots forgot that the Irish
Confederates were fighting for their religion and their nation
ality as they themselves had done. Such a reflection, even if
it had possibly occurred to dogmatic Presbyterians, had no
chance, in the circumstances, of the slightest practical con
sideration. Not only was the Scottish colony in Ulster
exposed to the gravest' danger from Charles' connivance with
Papist rebellion ; Scotland itself was traitorously to be drawn
into the strife by Royalist Hotspurs like Montrose without as
much as asking the opinion of either Assembly or Conven
tion. Here was a strong argument, not for mere mediation,
but for instant intervention by force of arms. Charles had
himself given Argyll and his party not merely a pretext, but

4°6 Negotiations with Parliamentary Commission.
a solid reason for concluding an alliance in the interest of
Scotland as well as of England. Nevertheless, the desperate
situation of the Parliamentary cause might well have damped
the ardour of its Scottish sympathisers. The undertaking in
which they were asked to embark seemed indeed a most
problematic one. It required the greatest nerve as well as
the greatest ardour to commit Scotland to the task of retriev
ing what seemed a lost cause, especially in the face of the
suspicion that the English Parliament had been forced by
pure necessity rather than pure enthusiasm for Scottish Pres
byterianism to seek a Scottish alliance. " For the present,"
wrote Baillie to Spang in reference to these negotiations, " the
Parliament side is running down the brae. They would never
in earnest call for help till they were irrecoverable ; now when
all is desperate they cry aloud for our help ; and how willing
we are to redeem them with our lives, you shall hear."
One condition of active co-operation they posited as an
indispensable preliminary. The Parliament must unequi
vocally undertake to accept and enforce the Presbyterian
Church government in England. On this point the General
Assembly was, as Baillie says, "peremptor." The English
Commissioners, of whom Sir Harry Vane was the leading
spirit, wished to negotiate a political league. The Assembly
and the Convention would only hear of a religious Covenant
as the basis of an active alliance. Nor would they agree to
countenance any terms savouring of Independency. It was
an exacting enough stipulation from the point of view of
national and conscientious scruples. The Scottish Presby
terians had learned from bitter experience what the disregard
of both meant, and their experience might well have made
them less opinionative and dour on such a point. England
was ecclesiastically, after all, by hoary tradition Episcopalian,
and on national grounds alone it was not for Scotland to
dictate to its representatives what system of Church govern
ment it should adopt. On the other hand, the majority of the
English Parliament had itself condemned Episcopacy, and
had 'resolved to substitute for it another form, and in insisting
that that form should be Presbyterian and not Independent,
the Scots appear in a less invidious light than in their
egregious demands to the King of England, who was at the

The Scottish Ultimatum. 4°7
same time the staunch protagonist of the Established Church.
In view of the dogmatism of the age all the world over, they
were quite entitled to say that if the English Parliament had
abolished Episcopacy, it could only have Scottish assistance
by preferring Presbyterianism to all other competing systems.
It might not be chivalrous to take advantage of the Parlia
ment's necessities to dictate on this point. It certainly was
not charitable or enlightened to condemn Independency or
any other non-Presbyterian system so dogmatically. But in
this age the dominant party was given to damning those who
disagreed with it in such matters, and it was natural enough,
in the circumstances, for Convention and Assembly to in
sist on a religious Covenant, or nothing. The Covenant
ing leaders, who did not overlook the political side of the
question, reasoned, too, that unless England was one with
Scotland in ecclesiastical polity, their own ecclesiastical
establishment was not firmly established, and that this com
munity of ecclesiastical interest would conduce to save Scot
land from a return of the civil and religious strife of the last
decade. There was, in truth, some doubt on the part of certain
members of Convention and Assembly as to the desirability
of committing Scotland absolutely to the Parliamentary
cause. A section of the most influential of them still clung
to the idea of mediation, and at a nocturnal meeting agreed
to the plan of sending a Scottish army to hold the balance.
The sagacious Warriston quickly disillusioned the authors of
this sanguine idea. " He did show," says Baillie, " the vanitie
of that notion, and the impossibility of it." A religious
Covenant was the only solution, and to this in the end it
came after lengthy weighing of words and phrases, though
Sir Harry Vane managed to slip in a saving clause that the
reform of religion in England should be " according to the
Word of God," as well as the example of the best Reformed
Churches. The Covenant further bound both sides to en
deavour to uproot Popery, Prelacy, superstition, schism, and
whatever should be found contrary to sound doctrine in
both nations, to preserve the rights and privileges of both
Parliaments, and the liberties of both kingdoms, to defend
his majesty's person and authority as far as accordant there-

408 The Solemn League and Covenant

&

with, to bring to trial and condign punishment all malignants,
to observe the Articles of the Treaty of 164 1, to maintain the
struggle, without defection, against all and sundry until the
great end should be accomplished. Finally, both nations
confessed their sins, and supplicated the Divine blessing on
their enterprise.
Such is the gist of the momentous document which both
Assembly and Convention on the 17th August unanimously
approved, and resolved to despatch to the Parliament for its
approbation. " It was received with the greatest applause
that ever I saw anything," says Baillie, " with so hearty affec
tions, expressed in the tears of pity and joy by very many
grave, wise, and old men." On the following day the Con
vention issued a proclamation to all the fencible men of the
kingdom, between sixteen and sixty, to hold themselves in
readiness for service. Out of this force they agreed, a week
later, in a treaty with the English Commissioners, to send an
army into England of at least 10,000 foot, 1,000 horse, and
the necessary artillery, under the command of a Scottish
general. The Commissioners on their side undertook, on
behalf of the Parliament, to furnish a contribution of £30,000
a month, and to pay, £100,000 before, and an additional con
tribution at the conclusion of peace — the money to be raised
from the confiscated estates of English Papists and other
malignants. Both parties further agreed that neither should
enter into any peace negotiations without the assent of the
other. Charles had lost Scotland, and he showed his vexation by
imprisoning Hamilton and his brother Lanark, on their return
to Oxford, for their share in the miscarriage of his plans.
Hamilton had certainly his own interests as well as the king's
to look after, but for the failure of his policy of sit-still
Charles' obstinacy was as much to blame as the duke's hope
less predilection to speak both sides fair.
To help the passage of the Covenant through the debates
of both Parliament and Assembly at Westminster, the Con
vention deputed Johnstone, Henderson, and Lord Maitland,
future Earl of Lauderdale. The Westminster Assembly sug
gested some amendments, intended to secure scruples of con
science against the literal adoption of the Scottish ecclesias-

Acceptance by English Parliament. 409
tical system, and in the Commons some of the more moderate
members, like Glyn and Maynard, demurred to the absolute
condemnation of Episcopacy, which must render any further
peace negotiations with Charles hopeless. But Pym's plea of
necessity carried it over objections based on prelatical and
conscientious grounds, and with the exception of some minor
omissions and additions, to which the Scottish Commissioners
agreed, the Covenant was approved by both Houses. The
phrase asserting the Church of Scotland to be according to
the Word of God, and the clause referring to the Treaty of
1641, were, for instance, omitted, while Ireland, as well as
Scotland and England, was included. As thus amended,
it was sworn by Parliament, Assembly, and Commissioners
on the 25th September, with befitting ceremonial, in St
Margaret's Church. " Mr White," we learn from Whitelocke,
" prayed an hour to prepare them " for the momentous trans
action, Mr Nye and Mr Henderson exhorting the members
from the pulpit, and all present thereafter holding up their
hands in sign of their assent. It was in virtue of it that the
vanguard of a Scottish army of fully 20,000 men, under the
veteran Alexander Leslie, Earl of Leven, crossed the Tweed
on the 19th January 1644, and tramped southwards through
the deep snow of a rigorous winter to turn the scale
decisively in favour of the Parliamentary cause. In virtue
of it, too, an Executive Committee of both kingdoms hence
forth displaced the Committee of Safety in the management
of the war (16th February 1644).
The credit of engineering the Solemn League and Covenant
belongs chiefly to Pym, Vane, and Argyll. It was Pym's last
master-stroke. Less than two months after its accomplish
ment he died of a painful disease (8th December). The
strenuousness of the man killed him at a comparatively
early age. In securing the agreement of the Parliament to
the Covenant, he had, however, ensured the discomfiture of
the king and his system of government, of which he had
been, from the beginning of the Long Parliament, the sworn
protagonist. In one sense the revolution was a struggle
between two men — King Charles and King Pym. As Charles
was the soul of one system of government, Pym was the soul
of the other, and the secret of the revolution lies largely in

4io Death of Pym.
the fact that neither would give in to the other. The two
systems, the supremacy of the king and the supremacy of
the Parliament, were irreconcilable, and it was for the
supremacy of Parliament that Pym stood through thick and
thin. " No man had more to answer for the miseries of the
kingdom," says Clarendon. The Royalist version of Pym's
responsibility shows at least that he was the guiding spirit
of the opposition which at last culminated on the battlefield.
He was, indeed, superlatively great (superlatively wicked,
Clarendon would have said) as a party leader, a party
organiser. He knew how to find the means to cope with
great emergencies when a false move would have meant
ruin to him and his cause. He was not only a strong
parliamentary leader ; he knew how to strengthen his posi
tion in Parliament by an appeal to public opinion. He
taught the people to support the Parliament as its representa
tive, despite the opposition of king and lords. His long
experience of parliamentary life stood him in good stead. " He
was," says Clarendon, " one of those few who had sat in many,"
and his tact and experience, his readiness of speech, his
knowledge of character, his ability to read the national
temper, his extraordinary gift of impressing his fellow-men
in favour of his views and aims, gave him a supremacy
over a large section of his fellow-members and of the people,
comparable to that which he claimed for Parliament itself.
" He seemed to all men," to quote his bitter enemy once
more, "to have the greatest influence upon the House of
Commons of any man . . . the most popular man and the
most able to do hurt that hath lived in any time."
If Pym was not the execrable politician that Clarendon
depicts, neither was he the wholesale hero that the biographers
delight to paint. He was a man of strong conviction, and
under the force of this conviction he could be as opinionative
as Charles himself. He had a fanatic vein in him — all men,
who sway their generation as he swayed his, must have — and
he was overruled by that inflatus which a great movement
exercises on the soul capable of responding to it. His quick
imagination might at times colour things too highly, if it
also enabled him to see into things more acutely than duller
eyes could see. One might wish that he had endeavoured to

His Character and Work. 411
make a constitutional king of Charles by less extreme methods,
had given his protestations the benefit of a trial instead of
persisting in his attitude of incessant suspicion. One might
wish that his Puritanism had been less intolerant, not merely
of Papists, but of Protestants who differed from him in their
interpretation of what was Popery and what was not. One
might wish, too, that he had tried to mitigate, instead of
exaggerating the Puritan one-sidedness of which he was in
some respects the embodiment. But had he not been the
staunch fighter, the alert tactician, the irrefragable believer in
himself and his cause that he was, would he have succeeded
in securing the rights for which the Puritans struggled ? Would
Charles have learned to permanently sacrifice his political and
ecclesiastical views to an arrangement with men who hated
all that he clung to with such tragic and impolitic constancy ?
If to cry peace when there was no peace was weak and aim
less, Pym was the very man to avoid such a futile course.
It is a proof of his superlative ability that, choosing the only
course which, politically and religiously, he held to be the
right and the safe course, he kept on his way against over
whelming obstacles, and had come at least within sight of
what seemed its attainment before he sank exhausted into the
grave. Nearly half a century was, indeed, to elapse before
Pym's ideas, intuitions were fully to be realised, in spite of
Solemn League and Covenant, and other expedients which
were doomed to temporary failure. Only the Revolution of
1688-89 saw the final realisation of Pym's policy of a practical
parliamentary supremacy in harmony with traditional forms.
That he strove for this entitles him to a meed of respect from
all parties, whether descendants of Roundheads or Cavaliers.
John Pym thoroughly deserved to be buried in Westminster
Abbey by resolution of the Commons, to have a monument
erected to his memory " at the charge of the Commonwealth,"
and to have his debts paid by an appreciative Parliament to
the extent of £10,000. His name must ever stand high in the
roll of England's civilian heroes. Let us, despite Clarendon
and other critics, at least be generous enough to hear his own
testimony in that declaration which he penned in self-vindica
tion in the last year of his life. "The cause that I am so
much maligned and reproached by ill-affected persons being

412 His Self-Vindication.
because I have been forward in advancing the affairs of this
kingdom, and having been taken notice of for this forward
ness ; they out of their malice converting that to a vice which,
without boast be it spoken, I esteem as my principal virtue,
my care to the public utility : and since it is for that cause
that I suffer these scandals, I shall endure them with patience,
hoping that God in His great mercy will at last reconcile his
majesty to his high court of Parliament ; and then I doubt
not but to give his royal self (though he be much incensed
against me) a sufficient account of my integrity. In the
interim I hope that the world will believe that I am not
the first innocent man that hath been injured, and so will
suspend their further censures of me."
We prefer such a personal vindication to all the volumes
of criticism, objective or non-objective, which are merely the
result of culling opinion from documents two and a half
centuries old. Let the voice of Pym himself speak. He
must, indeed, be poor in imagination who cannot recognise in
it the voice of one of the greatest wrestlers for principle that
England has ever produced.
The Solemn League and Covenant, unfortunately, can
hardly be called a monument in the history of liberty. It
emphasises, indeed, the defence of constitutional rights,
privileges, liberties ; and, on the English side, the main
incentive was not unity of religion, but the vindication of
political liberty. Its keynote is a rabid intolerance which,
however explicable in view of the spirit of the age, appears to
us tyrannical in the extreme. Both sides conjoined " liberty "
and " religion " in the declarations and deliberations of which
the Covenant was the outcome. The conjunction was most
unfortunate, though it certainly was not avoidable in the cir
cumstances. The ultimatum of the Scots left the Parliament
no alternative but to complicate the struggle with a new issue.
Religion had, indeed, been a main issue of the struggle from
the beginning. " The true estate of the cause and quarrel,"
its Commissioners informed the Scottish Estates on the 12th
August, " is religion." This was the fact. Puritan opposition
to Laudian Episcopacy, as well as to the misgovernment of
Charles, had plunged the country into civil war. Now, how-
ever,!lthe Parliament had been forced to commit itself to a

The Spirit of Persecution. 4X3
definite form of Church government, of which Scotland was
to furnish the model. Vane's saving clause might provide a
small loophole, but the Scots had made it unequivocally clear
that they would have nothing to do with Independency, and
had practically bound the Parliament to accept Presbyterianism
as the exclusive system in the three kingdoms. The Covenant
was subsequently (5th February) made obligatory on all
Englishmen above the age of eighteen, as well as on both
Houses. As long, indeed, as it continued to be so, religious
liberty for others, besides malignant Papists and Prelatists,
had a poor chance of recognition. Already the protest
against the persecution of the Royalist clergy who con
scientiously prayed and preached for the king, and refused to
pray and preach for the Parliament, had found indignant
voice in royal proclamations and declarations, such as the
proclamation of the 15th May 1643. These Royalist clergy
men were driven from their parishes and replaced by Puritans,
who preached the crusade against royalism and drew part of
the emoluments, whilst the rest was devoted to the mainten
ance of the war. It would be useless to look for tolerant
methods in the midst of a revolution such as this, and the
action of the Parliament may be defended on the ground of
necessity. But even before the signing of the Covenant, the
spirit of religious persecution, apart from political considera
tions, was sufficiently operative. The drastic action of Crom
well in Ely Cathedral on the 10th January 1643 affords a
striking illustration of the fact. Cromwell could not endure
the choir service which the incumbent persisted in having
sung in spite of his protests and commands, and at last broke
into the Cathedral with his Roundheads, and with the stern
exclamation, " Leave off your fooling and come down, sir,"
summarily cleared the incumbent and his choir out of the
building. The spirit of persecution was not likely to become
less aggressive now that the Covenant bound every English
man to profess Presbyterianism, whether he liked it or not,
and it was to be applied to others besides malcontent High
Churchmen. Cromwell himself was to learn that Inde
pendents were as obnoxious to the dominant party as the
most ardent Episcopalian. To these Solemn Leaguers and
Covenanters toleration, freedom of thought, and conscience

4X4 The Covenant and Political Liberty.
were unthinkable. Such freedom was branded, cursed as
pure atheism in the Scottish General Assembly, and the Par
liament having bound itself to eschew all heresy, schism,
everything contrary to sound doctrine, must now, nolens
volens, join in the cursing. It had, in fact, bent its neck to a
dogmatic theory as absolute as the ritualistic tyranny of a
Laud, or the Royalist autocracy of a Bishop Montague.
The Covenant, unhappily, thus tended to weaken the Par
liamentary cause in the nation, if, on the other hand, it con
tributed to turn the tide of disaster in the field. It sowed
the seeds of dissension in the Parliamentary ranks, and this
dissension was to come to full maturity after the battle, which
it helped so materially to fight, had been decisively won. It
was, in truth, only as it helped to win this battle that it was
serviceable to the cause of political liberty, for which the
Lords and Commons at Westminster had drawn the sword.
As far as the vindication of the rights of the subject from the
menace of arbitrary power in both Church and State was con
cerned, the Parliament was indubitably the champion of this
cause. It was primarily for this cause that men like Crom
well, Ludlow, and Hutchinson, not to mention Essex and
Pym, drew the sword, as the memoirs of the time prove, and
the alliance with the Scots, clogged though it was by the
bonds of ecclesiastical narrowness, as indubitably turned the
scale in its favour. Cromwell might have done it without the
Scots, but, minus the Scots, Cromwell's chance would probably
never have come.
Unfortunately, the world had not yet learned that religious
liberty is the corollary of political liberty. Nor is it by any
means apparent that the English Parliament had risen to the
height of the true conception of even civil liberty. It was
not, for instance, prepared to grant the free expression of
opinion. A period of civil war is certainly not a period for
trying experiments of this kind. To suffer the free expression
of opinion at such a crisis would, in fact, have been suicidal.
The two parties warred with the pen as well as with the
sword. They not only issued official declarations, counter-
declarations, disclaimers, exhortations ; their partisans poured
from the press newspapers and pamphlets which teemed with
lying reports and libels to the detriment of the opposite

A Religious and Intellectual Tyranny. 4!S
party. In these effusions victory went to the one side or the
other, according as the scribe dipped his pen in Royalist or
Parliamentary ink. Motives and actions were purposely mis
represented in the measure of the bias of the writer. Both
sides suffered equally from this campaign of lies, and the
Parliament time and again issued contradictions or condemna
tions of these " false and scandalous rumours," " scandalous
and lying pamphlets," and ordered the Royalist printers and
presses to be seized. See, for instance, the order of 6th March
1643. The futility of such attempts led to the establishment
of a strict censorship over all printed matter whatsoever, from
divinity to mathematics and " prognostications." The ordin
ance of June 1643 Put> in fact> an embargo on knowledge as
well as political opinion, and, as the noble " Defence of the
Liberty of Printing" shows, was regarded as an excessive
encroachment on intellectual liberty by even so confirmed an
adherent of the Parliamentary cause as Milton.
To men like Milton even civil war could not justify the
repression of intellectual life which this measure must involve.
In consequence, we read, -of the publication of many false,
forged, scandalous, seditious, libellous, and unlicensed papers,
pamphlets, and books, " it is ordered by the Lords and Com
mons that no Order or Declaration of both or either House of
Parliament shall be printed by any but by order of one or both
the said Houses, nor other book, pamphlet, papdr, nor part of
any such book, pamphlet, or paper shall from henceforth be
printed, bound, stitched, br put to sale by any person or
persons whatsoever unless the same be first approved and
licensed under the hands of such person or persons as both or
either of the said Houses shall appoint for the licensing of the
same and entered in the register book of the Company of
Stationers, according to ancient custom, and the printer
thereof to put his name thereto," &c. The Master and
Warders of the said Company were authorised to search for
and seize unlicensed printing presses and books, and apprehend
authors, printers, and others concerned in the publication
thereof for due punishment — all justices of the peace and
other officers to assist them in so doing.
The Parliament thus constituted itself the interpreter not
merely of the constitution in Church and State, but of what

416 Sources of Chapter XVIII.
constituted knowledge in all its departments. In so doing it
was certainly exceeding its functions, though the stress of the
time might afford some excuse for its presumption. It might
be defended, too, on the ground of usage, but it was indefen
sible as the act of an Assembly which so often appealed
to liberty, but in reality understood so imperfectly in many
essential points the true meaning of the word.
SOURCES. — Journals of the Lords and Commons, as noted
under last chapter. Rushworth gives all the more important
documents bearing on the negotiations of both sides with the
Scots. For the Solemn League and Covenant, in particular,
see, in addition to the above — The Acts of the Parliament of
Scotland, vi. ; Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
vii. ; Baillie's Letters and Journals, ii. (Bannatyne Club),
which for raciness, shrewdness, and lucidity may be compared
with Knox's History of the Reformation ; Peterkin's Records
of the Kirk, i. ; Bishop Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of
Hamilton (1679); Bishop Guthry's Memoirs (1748). For
the persecutions of the Royalist clergy in England, see
Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy.

CHAPTER XIX.
The Overthrow and Surrender of Charles
(1644-47).
The effect of the Solemn League and Covenant was to
induce Charles to essay once more a negotiation with the
Lords and Commons in the winter of 1644. Both sides had
been doing their best to render such a negotiation still more
futile than in that of 1643. The Parliament had gone the
length of impeaching the queen and passing a new great seal,
and had thus inflicted two additional wounds on Charles'
personal feelings and his royal authority. On the other hand,
he had not only formally declared the Parliament no longer
free, on the ground of the irregularities which he laid to its
charge (20th June 1643), but convened a rival Assembly at
Oxford (January- April 1644), which declared the members
of that at Westminster traitors. His negotiations with the
Irish Confederates had stirred the heart of Puritan England
into even fiercer antagonism than before. After the Solemn
League and Covenant on the one hand, and the Irish Cessa
tion on the other, it was to be even more than previously a
fight to a finish, with the chance of victory very considerably
augmented on the Parliamentary side.
Leven's advance into Northumbria was, indeed, fitted to
confirm in the Royalists the resolution to fight to the death
rather than yield. It touched their patriotism as well as
their loyalty to the quick, and their retorts to the declarations
that heralded the Scottish advance were both resolute and
cutting. "These ends which you propose," protested the
Royalist Northumbrian gentry, " are plausible indeed to them
that do not understand them ; the blackest designs did never
want the same pretences. If by the Protestant religion you
intend our Articles which are the public confession of our
VOL. III. 2 D

4l8 Spirited Protest against Scottish Intervention.
Church, and our Book of Common Prayer established by Act
of Parliament, you need not trouble yourselves. We are
ready to defend them with our blood. If it be otherwise, it is
plain to all the world that it is not the preservation, but the
innovation of religion that you seek, however by you styled
Reformation. And what calling have you to reform us by
the sword ? We do not remember that ever the like indignity
was offered by one nation to another, by a lesser to a greater.
... A vanquished nation would scarce endure such terms
from their conquerors. . . . You cannot think that we are
grown such tame creatures to desert our religion, our lives,
our liberties, our estates upon command of foreigners, and to
suffer ourselves and our posterity to be made beggars and
slaves without opposition."
The sentiment of this effusion was admirable, but it could
avail nothing against a splendidly equipped army of nearly
22,000, which came at the invitation of at least the majority
of the English Parliament and with the goodwill of a large
section of the English people. Neither the patriotism of the
Northumbrian gentry nor the exertions of Newcastle himself
could frustrate Leven's steady advance over roads heavy
with snow and slush to Newcastle, where he left a besieging
force, Durham, and finally to York, in whose neighbourhood
he joined hands with the Fairfaxes about the middle of April.
His progress had been facilitated by the successes of the
northern Parliamentary generals, which compelled Newcastle
to hurry southwards to the rescue. Rupert had, indeed, re
lieved Newark (21st March), but had been forced, in the mean
time, to desist in his purpose of penetrating farther north.
Charles himself was forced to retire from Oxford before the
advance of Essex and Waller, while Sir Thomas Fairfax took
Selby by assault. In the extreme south, too, in Hampshire,
Waller had at last scored in the battle of Cheriton against
Hopton, assisted though he was by the Royalist commander-
in-chief himself, Lord Forth (29th March). The effects of
Leven's movement were making themselves felt all over the
arena of operations. Newcastle could only retard his farther
advance by throwing himself into York with his 10,000 men.
In the siege of this northern Royalist stronghold he had the
help not only of the Fairfaxes with the men of Yorkshire, but

The Battle of Marston Moor. 4*9
of Manchester, formerly notorious as Lord Kimbolton, who
had reasserted the Parliamentary cause in Lincolnshire, in
spite of Rupert's success at Newark, with the army of the
Eastern Association. Newcastle's position was becoming
desperate by the middle of June, and it was Rupert's forced
march from Shrewsbury, through Lancashire and the West
Riding, that gave the allied generals the opportunity of
delivering on Marston Moor a terrible blow to the Royalist
cause. Rupert succeeded, indeed, in outmanoeuvring the
allied commanders and forcing them to retire a few miles to
the south-west. His eagerness to win a battle as well as raise
a siege betrayed him once more, despite the remonstrances of
the old Scottish General King, into a rash attack, and in the
waning hours of the 2nd July the united Royalist army was
swept from the field with crushing loss by Cromwell and
David Leslie with their English and Scottish horsemen. For
a time, indeed, victory trembled in the balance. Cromwell's
and Leslie's horse on the left Parliamentary wing drove the
Royalist squadrons into headlong rout after a hard struggle.
" God made them as stubble to our swords," wrote Cromwell.
But Goring on the Royalist left did equal havoc on Sir Thomas
Fairfax's horse on the Parliamentary right, and had nearly
finished the work of crushing or routing the Parliamentary
centre under Leven,Manchester,and Lord Fairfax. A section of
the Scottish infantry under Baillie and Manchester's division
under Crawford were fighting desperately to maintain their
ground, but Leven had been hustled into flight with the other
section, after struggling in vain to rally it, and galloped away
to Leeds, forty miles from the battlefield. It was Cromwell's
and Leslie's horsemen that just in the nick of time saved the
situation. The charge of their troopers round the rear of the
Royalist centre and against the flank of Goring's victorious
wing relieved the pressure on the Parliamentary centre, and
ended in the complete rout not only of the Royalist left, but
of the royalist centre.
Cromwell gave all the glory to God in the letter which he
wrote to his brother-in-law, Colonel Walton, after the battle,
while Rupert ascribed the victory to the devil, ever ready to
help his servants. He showed at the same time a due sense
of his own merits, but he might have been a little more

420 Failure to Improve the Victory.
appreciative of David Leslie's assistance and the valour of
the Scottish horse, and at least a portion of the Scottish foot.
It was the rout of the Fairfax horse on the Parliamentary
right that had very nearly lost the* battle to the allies, and
had not Maitland's, Pitscottie's, and Lumsdaine's Scottish foot
regiments held their ground in the centre, Cromwell's and
Leslie's charge would have come too late to retrieve incipient
disaster. The surrender of York a fortnight later was the more
immediate effect of the battle. Practically it meant irretriev
able disaster to the Royalist cause in the north. Such was, at
all events, the conclusion of Newcastle, who threw up that
cause as hopeless and retired to the Continent. A concentrated
effort against the south must add to the defeat of Rupert
that of Charles himself, and end the war with the year's
campaign. The victors were, however, incapable of improv
ing their victory, except in a petty sort of fashion. Leven
rather shamefacedly retraced his steps northwards to besiege
Newcastle ; the Fairfaxes lingered in Yorkshire to reduce the
Royalist strongholds ; Manchester returned to Lincoln to waste
time in inaction, and quarrel with Cromwell. Still worse, Essex
and Waller had, as usual, got out of touch in the south. Their
lack of co-operation had enabled Charles to beat Waller
at Cropredy Bridge in Oxfordshire (29th June), and Essex's
foolhardy plan of penetrating into the south-west gave him
the chance of taking advantage of the respite after Marston
Moor to isolate and crush his old enemy in the wilds of
Cornwall. At Lostwithiel, on the 2nd September, Skippon's
infantry was forced to surrender after Balfour's cavalry had
succeeded in slipping through the Royalist lines, and their
commander-in-chief had slunk away by sea to Plymouth.
This disaster, if a much smaller feat for the Royalist cause
than Marston Moor had been for the Parliament, at least
nullified, as a contemporary complained, "the whole summer's
travel " of the Parliamentary generals in the south. If
Charles could get back to Oxford without mishap, he might
still claim to be master of at least a considerable area of
England. To frustrate his purpose the reluctant Manchester
was at length forced by the Committee to move from Lincoln
shire and join Waller and the remnant of Essex's troops at

The Second Battle of Newbury. 42i
Basingstoke, . south of Newbury. The ill-concerted and ill-
directed attempt (the chief command being placed by the
Committee's direction in commission) led only to an in
decisive success. In the second battle of Newbury (27th
October) Charles' army was indeed severely shaken by
superior numbers, but it fought with sufficient effect to en
able it to retire in marching order during the following night.
Nay, it was sufficiently strong to venture back unmolested
from Oxford to relieve Donnington Castle, on the site of the
battle, and recover the artillery and luggage stored therein.
After inflicting one serious disaster on his opponents and
himself escaping another at their hands, Charles had still
some reason for clinging to the belief that, despite Marston
Moor, he would yet get the upper hand of his enemies. Only
in the north had the superiority of strength on the Parlia
mentary side told decisively against him, and if it was to tell
against him in the south, the Parliament would have to find
other generals than Manchester and Essex to direct it.
It was this conviction in the minds of men like Cromwell
that produced the new Model Army and the Self-denying
Ordinance, though the germ of the idea is found in a letter of
the unfortunate Waller, who had had bitter enough experience
of the tendency of local levies to desert, to the Committee of
Both Kingdoms in July 1644. "An army compounded of
these men will never go through with their service, and, till
you have an army merely your own, that you may command,
it is in a manner impossible to do anything of importance."
For some time, indeed, it looked as if the only outcome of
the southern campaign would be a wretched personal alterca
tion between the generals concerned in its operations. Not
only Essex, but Manchester had come out of it with reputation
completely eclipsed. The one had blundered lamentably into
disaster; the other had allowed Charles to blunder out of
disaster. With such men, especially with his superior, Man
chester, Cromwell could no longer consort, and at his initiation
the feud that had, for three months previous to the battle of
Newbury, raged between them in camp and before the Com
mittee of Both Kingdoms, was transferred to the arena of
Parliament. On the 25 th November Cromwell rose in his
place in the House of Commons to arraign in his bluntest

422 Cromwell Arraigns Manchester.
fashion Manchester's want of enterprise, his bad generalship,
his disobedience to the Committee, his indisposition to take
the advice of his council of war. In short, his conduct had
been uncommonly like that of a traitor to the great cause.
He had acted as one to whom "victory would be a dis
advantage " ; as one, in fact, who would fain have spared the
king a disaster, instead of doing his utmost for his own side.
He had let Charles escape, not only by sheer blundering, but
in deference to scruples altogether unbefitting a Parliamentary
general. " If we beat the king," Cromwell reported Manchester
as replying to the urgent representations of his council after
Newbury battle, "he will be king still and his posterity,
and we subjects still ; but if he beat us but once, we shall
be hanged and our posterity undone." If Cromwell spoke
truly, it certainly was time that the earl's pusillanimous
speeches should be reported. Cromwell saw clearly what
that generation did not see, and what subsequent genera
tions have failed to see, as many a military disaster in British
history evidences, that men of high aristocratic rank are not,
in virtue merely of their birth, fitted to lead armies. His
attack was virtually a plea for the recognition of merit, not
of name, in the conduct of military operations. The noble
earls who presumed to command armies or navies merely
because they were earls, should give place to plain squires
like himself, to whom God had given the genius necessary to
bring the war to a successful conclusion.
On the other hand, Manchester in the House of Lords had,
in reply, some very questionable speeches of his lieutenant-
general to report. Had he not indulged in certain ultra-
revolutionary sayings by no means flattering to the House
of Lords or lords in general ? Had he not very democratically
opined, for instance, that things would not be well in England
till he, Edward Montague, Earl of Manchester, were but plain
Mr Montague? Had he not presumed to criticise the As
sembly of Divines and asserted his own Independent ideas,
the Solemn League and Covenant notwithstanding, and thus
endangered the alliance between the two peoples ? Had he
not, further, been guilty of " schism," or insubordination, and
quarrelled with, intrigued against his superior and such trusty
subordinates as Major-General Crawford ?

Threatened Friction in Parliament. 423
Here were all the elements of a rousing controversy which,
but for Cromwell's magnanimity and public spirit, might have
set the two Houses by the ears and made waste paper of the
Covenant. The lords, of course, stood by a member of their
body, whose dubious tactics represented their own sentiments
and opinions. They were supported by the Scottish Com
missioners, who resented Cromwell's Independency and would
fain have had him brought to trial as an " incendiary." " Ye
ken verie weel," said Loudon in his Scottish dialect to White
locke at a meeting at Essex House, to which he and Maynard
had been invited by the leaders of the anti-Cromwell party,
" that Lieutenant-General Cromwell is no friend of ours, and
since the advance of our army into England, he hath used all
underhand and cunning means to tak off from our honour and
the merits of this (our) kingdom . . . and if he be permitted
to go on in his ways, it may, I fear, indanger the whole busi
ness. . . . You may ken that by our law in Scotland we clepe
(call) him an incendiary wha kindleth coals of contention and
raiseth differences in the State to the public damage." White
locke and Maynard admitted that the same law held in
England, but they adduced Cromwell's great merits and his
interest in the House of Commons as a strong argument
against the proposed arraignment. Whitelocke spoke truly.
The majority of the Commons were determined to back one
of their members who denounced incompetence and half-
heartedness apparent to all, and who had proved his own
merits in these respects beyond question. "The Earl of
Manchester," wrote Trevor to Ormonde sarcastically, " is
become the owl of this Commonwealth, wherein every bird
hath a peck at him, and if he escape with the loss of his
feathers, his condition will be very much above the expecta
tions of his friends."
Happily, Cromwell himself nipped in the bud the conten
tions which he had forced on the Houses. He had made his
charge against Manchester on public, not on personal grounds,
and on these grounds he was ready to waive it.
On the 9th December he, accordingly, made a second
speech, urging the House to forbear further recrimination and
inquisition, arid apply itself to the task of finding an effective
remedy. What the remedy was appeared that very day, when

424 Self-denying Ordinance and New Model.
Mr Zouch Tate, seconded by the younger Vane, proposed an
ordinance whereby no member of either House should exercise
any office or command, civil or military, during the continu
ance of the war. This measure would, without further re
crimination, secure the efficiency on which Cromwell was bent,
and without which it was useless to wage war at all. Tactics
like those of Manchester would mean not only indecisive
battles, but utter ruin to the Parliamentary cause. It had
the merit, too, of unanimity in its favour, at least in the
Commons. On the 19th December it was passed without
contradiction and sent to the House of Lords. The Lords
were, however, by no means in a self-denying mood, for the
ordinance meant the resignation of their most distinguished
members and the virtual extinction of aristocratic influence
on the march of affairs. They preferred to waste time and
endanger the cause by continuing the Manchester-Cromwell
controversy. Accordingly, on the 15th January 1645, they
rejected the ordinance on the ground that "they did not
know what shape the army will now suddenly take." The
Commons retorted by ordering the Committee of Both
Kingdoms to produce the New Model of the Army, of
which the resolution of December 1643 nad proved the
futile anticipation, and by passing this model on the 28th
January. In the face of this definite scheme the Lords were
forced to waive further opposition, and ultimately, after the
insertion of a clause making it obligatory on both officers
and men to take the Covenant, it became law on the 15th
February. Whether the New Model would be required to attest its
efficiency in the field depended on the issue of the negotia
tions for peace which had been simultaneously carried on
at Uxbridge. During the previous summer the Lords and
Commons had debated into shape a number of propositions,
and these propositions their Commissioners presented to the
king at Oxford on the 24th November. The Commissioners
found him, as Whitelocke noted, " in no good humour." He
was especially offended at the presence of Maitland and two
other Scottish representatives. He asked them what powers
they had. To receive your majesty's answer in writing,
replied Denbigh. A letter carrier might have done that,

Parliamentary Peace Proposals. 425
was the snappish retort. All the answer they got was merely
a sealed demand for a safe-conduct for the Duke of Lennox
and the Earl of Southampton to convey some counter pro
positions. Denbigh, as their spokesman, demurred, and
asked for a copy of the missive. " What is that to you who
are but to carry what I send, and if I will send the song of
Robin Hood and Little John, you must carry it." "The
business is of somewhat more consequence than that song,"
quietly returned Denbigh. Charles at last relaxed, and sent a
copy of the demand. The Commissioners discovered that it
was directed to the Parliament and contained no acknowledg
ment of their official capacity, and again remonstrated. This
time Charles was inexorable, and rather than wreck the
negotiation on a point of form, they desisted, and returned to
report. In their desire for an accommodation, the Lords and
Commons acquiesced, though not without some outspoken
criticism of the royal discourtesy, and ultimately, after further
debate, a new set of Commissioners, including Loudon, Mait-
land, and others as Scottish representatives, with Henderson
as clerical assessor, met those of the king at Uxbridge on
the 29th January 1645. The Parliamentary propositions, to
the number of twenty-seven, embraced religion, the militia,
Ireland. They asked- the king to cancel all proclamations
and indictments against the Parliaments of both kingdoms, to
take the Solemn League and Covenant and make it obligatory
on all three kingdoms, to abolish Episcopacy and substitute
the form of Church government recommended by the
Assembly of Divines and accepted by Parliament, to per
secute Papist recusants, to assent to the Bills reforming abuses
in the Church, to ratify the Acts of the Scottish Convention
and confirm the treaties existing between the two kingdoms,
to nullify the Irish Cessation and prosecute the war against
the Irish rebels, to invest in Parliament the power of
nominating all great officers of State in England and Scot
land and the Deputy-Lieutenant of Ireland, to exempt from
pardon a long list of obnoxious Royalists, to disqualify all
justices and other legal functionaries who had turned against
the Parliament, to entrust the militia in both countries to
commissioners nominated by their respective Parliaments, to
suppress all forces raised without their authority, to conclude

426 Dissension on the Religious Question.
peace or declare war only with the assent of both Parlia
ments, &c.
Charles, on the other hand, contented himself with repeat
ing, for the most part, the demands made during the abortive
negotiation at Oxford in 1643.
If, in the negotiation at Oxford, religion helped to bar the
way to agreement, it contributed still more to create an
impassable barrier in that of Uxbridge. The Parliamentary
Commissioners now put forward a definite scheme of Church
government on the Scottish model. They even asked Charles
to admit the divine right of Presbytery, as well as swear the
Covenant. Their opponents retorted with the divine right of
Episcopacy, though some of the Commissioners on both sides,
like the Royalist Hertford and the Parliamentary Pembroke,
were willing to ignore the question of the divine right of either
system. "The reverend doctors, on the king's part," said
Hertford very sensibly and tolerantly, " affirm that Episcopacy
is juro divino ; the reverend ministers, of the other part, do
affirm that Presbytery is jure divino. For my part, I think
that neither the one nor the other, nor any government what
soever, is jure divino, and I desire we may leave this argu
ment and proceed to debate upon the particular proposals."
This accommodating spirit was by no means shared by the
clerical champions on either side, and the theological wrestling
between Steward and Henderson only widened the chasm
between them. The royal Commissioners would not sur
render the bishops ; they clung to the ecclesiastical pre
rogative, and to apostolic succession ; they could not advise
his majesty to swear the Covenant, or recognise the Assembly
of Divines ; they would not give up the Book of Common
Prayer in preference to the Directory of Worship. They were
willing, for the sake of peace, to allow nonconformity in
matters religious, and suspend the penalties thereanent. They
would agree that the bishops should exercise no act of juris
diction or ordination without the consent and counsel of one
presbyter in each diocese to be chosen by the clergy. They
were ready, too, to sacrifice pluralities and other abuses which
had long formed the stock-in-trade of the Puritan reformer.
But they would not root out the traditional Church govern
ment in deference either to the Solemn League and Covenant

On the Militia and Ireland. 427
or to the Root and Branch Bill, and would go no further than
a slightly modified Episcopacy, with reform of abuses to
make it more palatable. Their concessions would have been
eminently reasonable and satisfactory five years before. They
had come too late to be acceptable now, even if Charles could
be relied on to enforce them. They were far from satisfying
the religious convictions, whether Presbyterian or Independent,
of a large section of the Commons, and their acceptance would,
moreover, involve a breach of faith on the part of Parliament
towards its Scottish allies. The Scottish alliance, in fact,
precluded even their consideration, far less their acceptance.
The Parliamentary Commissioners, therefore, held that they
had proved their case to demonstration against Episcopacy
and in favour of Presbyterianism, and insisted on the substitu
tion of the latter for the former as the. indispensable minimum
of reformation. It was only too evident, long before this consummation,
that the ecclesiastical debate would end in failure. That on
the militia and Ireland was no more successful. The Royalist
representatives were ready to place the militia in commis
sion, but they limited the term to three years, and demanded
that the king should nominate half the commissioners. They
ignored at first the demand in reference to Scotland, and
would subsequently go no further than to promise to enter
into a separate agreement on this head, on condition that
the Scottish Commissioners were authorised by their Parlia
ment to make it. Their opponents, on the other hand,
insisted on the solidarity of the two kingdoms, and would only
agree to a limitation of seven years, when a further settlement
should be made by the united consent of the king and the
Parliament ; but they would not admit his majesty's claim to
a voice in the nomination of the present commission. They
further refused, in reference to Irish affairs, his claim to
make a cessation of arms in Ireland, energetically condemned
the exercise of this claim without the consent of the Parlia
ments of England and Scotland, and insisted that the Irish
Treaty should be declared void in the interest of the Pro
testant religion and the welfare of the three kingdoms. In
this contention they persisted despite all arguments to the
contrary. On both religious and national grounds the ani-

428 Parliamentary Vindictiveness and Intolerance.
mosity of Englishman to Irishman would not allow a fair
or charitable consideration of Irish claims. In the view of
the Parliament and its Commissioners, as well treat with
brute beasts as with these accursed Papists, whose hands were
dyed with Protestant blood, and for whom extirpation was
too good. Charles must stand aside that the vengeance of
the Parliament be not stayed — nay, he must lend his assistance
in the bloody work.
The resentment of the Lords and Commons might be
natural in the circumstances, with the record of massacre
ringing in their ears. But their eagerness for the blood of
Irish heretics and rebels was more beseeming Mohammedans
than Christians, and it certainly did not tend to make the
task of accommodation easier. Charles had recognised from
political and personal reasons that the rebellious Irish had
after all some claim, on national and religious grounds, to
consideration on the part of a Government which in the past
had been guilty of many wrongs towards the Irish people.
He could even discriminate degrees of guilt, and in his reply
he taught the Parliament a much-needed lesson in toleration
and mercy. " We are far from that Mohametan doctrine that
we ought to propagate our religion with the sword. The war
destroys all alike, without distinction (even innocent children
have suffered, not by the rebels only), and all are not tigers
or wolves. There may be grounds of mercy to some, though
no severity be excessive towards others."
The Parliament saw nothing but the interest of England
and the Protestant religion, and was determined to outdo
Irish ferocity by a bloody retribution. It was ere long to have
its bloodthirsty cravings more than satisfied by Cromwell ;
but, in the meantime, Charles' Commissioners stood firm, and
further debate was cut short by the expiry of the period
during which the negotiations were by agreement to last, and
by the impossibility of extending it. On the 22nd February,
both sides separated in hopeless contention. There was yet
to be grim work enough for the New Model and its com
mander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax.
In this work the services of Cromwell could not be dis
pensed with, in spite of the Self-denying Ordinance. He
had been hard at work helping Waller in the west, through-

Charles still Sanguine. 429
out March and the first half of April, and on his return to
give up his commission, he was within a few days sent into
Oxfordshire to commence the preliminaries of the campaign
against Charles himself. In the beginning of June he was
nominated Lieutenant-General once more, this time under a
commander-in-chief after his own heart. " There is little or
no appearance," wrote Charles to the queen, on the eve of the
collapse of the peace negotiations, "but that this summer
will be the hottest for war of any that hath been." He still
reckoned on being able to hold .his own in spite of the New
Model, and was rather pleased than otherwise that the failure
of negotiations had freed him from the pacific importunities
of his mongrel Oxford Parliament, as he called it. Mon
trose's victorious progress in Scotland, and the news that the
queen had succeeded in persuading the Duke of Lorraine to
hasten to his assistance with 10,000 men, made him sanguine
even of ultimate triumph. He relied, too, on the effects on
the Catholic princes of the assurance which he empowered
the queen to give, that he would, God willing, abolish all
penal laws against the English Catholics. That he could
believe in the feasibility of such problematic schemes is a
striking proof that the impracticable habit of looking at
things as he wished to see them rather than as they were,
had only grown more inveterate, despite all the bitter lessons
of experience. He would yet by such expedients crush his
foes, and be master in his own kingdom once more. Such
was the sanguine reading of the future that buoyed him up
on the eve of irreparable disaster. The influence of the
queen, unfortunately, only tended to confirm the delusion.
He had as great a confidence in Henrietta Maria as in him
self. Events, swift and terrible, were to bring a grim dis
enchantment. The Royalists were, in truth, fully expectant
of' victory, though somewhat uneasy on the subject of the
New Model. "We have no fear of continuing our suc
cesses," wrote Trevor to Ormonde, in reference to Goring's
early operations in the west against Waller, " unless the new
Armada they are providing at London strike a peg into the
wheel of our fortune."
Cromwell's activity in Oxfordshire helped very materially
to bring on the crisis. His rapid and successful attacks at

43° The Battle of Naseby.
Islip, at Bleckington, at Bampton, hindered Charles from
moving from Oxford to join Rupert at Worcester. He ulti
mately, indeed, got away before Fairfax was able to invest
it, marched dubiously hither and thither in the Midlands,
threatened an inroad into the eastern counties, and stormed
Leicester (30th May). But by the middle of June, Fairfax,
waiving the siege of Oxford, was within striking distance near
Naseby, in Northamptonshire, with Cromwell as Lieutenant-
General, and a clear superiority of numbers to boot. Here at
last, on the 14th, took place the decisive battle of the war.
As at Edgehill, Rupert charged the Parliamentary left, and
swept Ireton's horse from the field ; but, as at Marston, the
fierce struggle on the other wing, which Cromwell com
manded, ended in the rout of Langdale's squadrons on the
Royalist left. Then rushing his Ironsid.es against the exposed
flank of the Royalist centre in support of Fairfax's foot,
Cromwell broke it and drove Charles and his army into flight
towards Leicester, without hope of ever being able again to
face the New Model in open field. Naseby had at last in
disputably decided the bloody contest of four years in favour
of the Parliament. On this day, as Clarendon ruefully reflects,
the king and the kingdom were lost. It was not a great battle
in the modern sense. The combatants on both sides would
not have made up a single modern army corps. Charles had
only 10,000 horse and foot, against Fairfax's 13,000. But in
its effects the battle settled the great issue between the two
parties as decisively as if the whole might of Royalist and
Roundhead England had been arrayed in deadly struggle.
Four times had Charles commanded in person in pitched
battle during these years of internecine campaigning. At
Edgehill, at Newbury, at Newbury again, he had claimed the
advantage, and had at least fought so doggedly that the
Parliamentary commanders were fain to rest content with the
mere possession of the field. At Naseby, against Fairfax and
Cromwell, he was irretrievably beaten. At the end of the
battle and the pursuit his army was non-existent — half of it
prisoners, the other destroyed or fugitive, its artillery and
baggage in the hands of the victors. Charles fled to Wales,
and on the Welsh border and in the Midlands he hovered
irresolutely with a couple of thousand horsemen, at one time

Irreparable Disaster — Demoralisation. 43 l
penetrating as far east as Huntingdon ; at another, forcing
Leven to raise the siege of Hereford ; at another, turning
north to Rowton Heath to suffer defeat at the hands of Major-
General Poyntz, in the hope of relieving Chester and joining
Montrose in Scotland ; anon returning to Oxford in November,
whence he was finally driven by Fairfax in the spring of 1646,
to seek refuge in the Scottish camp at Newark (5th May).
The attempts to forestall this extremity by repeated
appeals to the Parliament for the renewal of peace negotia
tions fell on deaf ears. The Lords and Commons not only
refused to accede to the demand for a safe-conduct for Charles'
representatives; they would not entertain his offer to come
to London and treat with them in person, even with the pro
fession of large concessions, including liberty of conscience,
to back it. There could now be no question of a treaty.
Charles must simply accept the terms offered him,- and these
terms would be forwarded in due time in the form of Bills
for his assent. From this resolution neither appeals nor pro
testations could move them. The time had gone past for
playing the fiasco of Uxbridge over again.
After Naseby the conflict was practically decided as far
as England was concerned. By a supreme effort at concen
tration, with the aid of Goring, Charles might still have
gathered an army out of the scattered Royalist garrisons and
the men of Cornwall and Devon. The demoralisation follow
ing on Naseby rendered the task hopeless. The discovery of
his negotiations, through the queen, with the Duke of Lor
raine, the kings of Denmark and France, and with the Irish
rebels through Glamorgan, for armed assistance — evidenced
by the papers captured at Naseby and the letters intercepted
later — alienated many even of his former supporters. As
usual, he disowned his own letters and his own agents, such
as Glamorgan, when publicity brought to light his furtive
schemes. His disclaimers deceived nobody but himself. Even
the buoyant Digby began to despair of success after Naseby.
"I protest to God," wrote he to Lord Jermyn on the 27th
August 1645, " I do not know four persons living besides myself
and you who have not already given clear demonstration that
they will purchase their own, and as they flatter themselves, the
kingdom's quiet, at any price to the king, to the Church, and

432 Montrose to the Rescue.
to the faithfullest of his party. But to deal freely with you, I
do not think it will be in the king's power to hinder himself
from being forced to accept such conditions as the rebels will
give him, and that the next news you will have, after we have
been one month at Oxford, (is) that I and those few others
who may be thought by our counsels to fortify the king in
firmness to his principles, shall be forced or torn from him."
The rest of this bellicose story is, therefore, mere detail as
far as England is concerned, comprising, inter alia, Goring's
defeat at Langport (ioth July), the reduction of Bristol (ioth
September), the storming of Basing House (14th October),
and of Dartmouth (18th January 1646), the surprise of Here
ford (8th December), the defeat of Hopton at Torrington in
Cornwall (16th February), the surrender of Exeter (9th April),
of Oxford (24th June), and finally, of Worcester in July.
For a brief interval it seemed as if, in the crisis after
Naseby, salvation might come to the Royalist cause from
Scotland, as it had come to that of the Parliament in the
midst of the gloomy outlook of the summer of 1643. In the
autumn, winter, and summer of 1644-45, Montrose had practi
cally conquered Scotland for the king. Ever since the com
mencement of hostilities he had been importuning Charles for
authority to raise the royal standard north of the Border, and
had striven hard to win the queen for his bellicose plans. The
Covenanters, he argued, would certainly sooner or later strike
in on behalf of the Parliament, and the only way to forestall
such a contingency was to seize the leaders and crush their
followers before they had time to organise an invasion. The
ardent young marquess had no belief in the efficacy of any
policy but that of force, and the desire to retaliate on his
Covenanting persecutors as well as vindicate the royal authority
gave zest to his importunities. He had some political philo
sophy in his head as well as much chivalry in his heart. In a
letter to a friend (1640-41), he had expounded his views on
government in the abstract, with some application to Scot
land. In this effusion he emphasises the necessity of sove
reignty in some distinct organ of the State, such as a monarch,
an aristocracy, a Parliament of three estates. Scotland being
a monarchy will never be rightly governed until the relation
of crown and people is properly adjusted. Government by

His Character and Political Activity. 433"
faction (such as that of Argyll presumably) is the short road
to tyranny. To 'prevent this Charles should grant guarantees
as to religion and just liberties, and thus re-establish his
authority. The time for the peaceable application of this
theory was now, however, past. Montrose's sword should do
what his pen had failed to do.
Not only was Royalism to him a creed ; his high strung
soul could not brook subordination to others, especially to
men of the type of Argyll, who embodied all that was hate
ful to him in politics, all that was fitted to make them per
sonal enemies. He had been under the necessity of harbour
ing his opinions and his sentiments in silence since Argyll's
ascendency had shunted him into a position of impotence
and endangered for a time his head. At one juncture, indeed,
in the spring of 1643, we find him, after the rejection of his
overtures by Charles, professing some inclination to come to
terms with the dominant party in Scotland, and carrying on
a dubious intrigue with its leaders, who offered to pay his
debts and make him second in command to Leven. He
played with these overtures for some weeks and even inter
viewed Henderson at Stirling on some scruples of conscience
(as he gave out). His real purpose, according to Guthry,
was merely to ferret out the secrets of his opponents in order
to discover new arguments wherewith to ply the king to
authorise his aggressive scheme. At all events he had, equally
with Argyll, acquired the reputation of being an adept in the
art of intrigue on his own side of the question, and it would,
indeed, in such an age be rather naive to look, as his admirers
do, for absolute honesty in any quarter whatsoever, even in
that quarter which the star of Montrose has illumined with
a halo of romance. " The man," says Baillie, somewhat
hesitatingly, " is said to be verie double, which in so proud
a spirit is strange." His chaplain and panegyrist, Wishart,
unwittingly confirms Baillie's suspicion of his hypocrisy in
this instance at all events, and this trait hardly fits in with
the ultra-partisan conception of his unalloyed idealism. " He
pretended," says Wishart, " to have some scruples," in order
to ferret out the secrets of the Covenanting leaders, and be
fooled Henderson into the belief not only that he had a high
opinion of his veracity and honesty, but that he himself was
VOL. III. 2 E

434 His Enthusiasm.
actuated by absolute sincerity in the overtures he made to
him. In view of these tactics, it is rather ingenuous on
Wishart's part to add that " on the other hand his generous
mind disdained to encourage their (the Covenanting party's)
hopes ! " A generous mind that first pretended scruples for
a certain purpose and yet disdained to encourage hopes, is
an anomaly which his reverend chaplain and his modern
panegyrists do not deem necessary to explain.
Double or not, he certainly was an enthusiast :
" He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
And win or lose it all."
His impetuosity made at first no impression on his staid
majesty. He preferred the cautious policy of Hamilton, who
pointed out that the rash, bellicose schemes of the young
enthusiast would only set Scotland in a blaze, and very probably
defeat their own purpose by precipitating the Covenanters
into the arms of the Parliament. Hamilton undertook to
keep matters smooth whilst essaying the efficacy of intrigue.
Unfortunately for Charles, he over-estimated his powers, with
what results we are already acquainted, if indeed, as the
Royalists believed, he was not playing double in his own
interest. With the Scottish invasion Montrose's opportunity came
at length, and in the winter of 1643-44, Charles commissioned
him as Lieutenant-General of his Viceroy in Scotland, Prince
Rupert, to attempt that diversion northwards, in whose favour
he had argued and importuned so long. With the assistance
of an Irish force, which Antrim undertook to land in Argyll,
and reinforcements, whom Charles hoped to negotiate from
Denmark, and such horse and foot as Newcastle could spare,
Montrose would turn the tables on the rebellious Scots, and
strike a decisive blow for the king.
It seemed at first, indeed, as if he had set out on a
visionary enterprise. Newcastle could spare him no more
than a few horsemen ; Antrim's expected landing did not
take place, and after crossing the Border with a few troopers
and infantry, and seizing Dumfries, he was driven back by

On the War-path in Scotland. 435
the Sheriff of Teviotdale to Carlisle to expend his Royalist
enthusiasm in reducing Morpeth. Marston Moor, in which
he just missed taking part by a day's march, put an end
to further hopeful adventures in these parts. The outlook
seemed desperate enough, but Montrose was equal to the
occasion. He resolved to seek the Highlands single-handed,
and raise the clans for the king. Disguised as a groom, in
attendance on Colonel Sibbald, he reached the Perthshire
uplands, and furtively concocted a rising of the Athole men.
With these and an Irish contingent, which Antrim had
managed to land on the west coast, under Alastair Mac-
Donald, the sworn foe ;,of Argyll, whose hand had pressed
hard on his kin, he burst out of the mountains into Strath-
earn, and scattered a much larger Covenanting force under
Elcho and Tullibardine, at Tippermuir, near Perth, on
Sunday, the 1st September. From Perth he hurried away
to avoid Argyll, who was marching to the rescue, through
Angus to Aberdeen, gathering reinforcements among the
Ogilvies as he went, to repeat the exploit of Tippermuir at
the expense of another Covenanting force double the size
of his own, and sack the city with horrible cruelty (13th
September). It was a strange role for the man to play who
had but six years before gained notoriety against the Royalist
Gordons as the aggressive protagonist of the National
Covenant. The approach of Argyll and Lothian, who had
tracked him northwards with a superior body of horse and
foot, again drove him from the scene of his victory westwards
into the mountains of Badenoch, and ultimately, after tortuous
marches down into Athole, back into Aberdeenshire, to Athole
once more — "coursing thrice round about from Spey to
Athole," says Baillie — succeeded in giving his pursuers the
slip. Though he had lost most of his followers by desertion,
he managed to gather a fresh band, and burst about the
middle of December into the Argyll country to harry and
slay to his heart's content till the end of January. Then
sweeping north with intent to crush the northern clans, whom
Seaforth had gathered on Loch Ness, he swerved aside into
Lochaber on hearing that Argyll and his clansmen were on
the war-path in this wild region. At Inverlochie, on Sunday,
the 2nd February, he pounced on his prey with such effect

43^ A Victorious Campaign.
that most of them lay dead among the heather at the end of
the battle and the pursuit. " Behold," mused Baillie, sadly,
"the indignation of the Lord." It showed, at any rate, that
if Argyll could manage Parliaments, he could not win
battles. He was more in his element in the Parliament
House than on the battlefield, and with more prudence than
courage he exercised the art of war from a boat on the
loch, and thus escaped the slaughter. A disabled arm, due
to a fall, and the pressure of his friends, are adduced
as the explanation of his somewhat self-indulgent notion of
generalship. The advent of April 1645 again found Montrose, after fur
ther marchings in the Moray country, full-swing on the war-path
on the eastern side of the Grampians. A rapid night march
brought him to the gates of Dundee on the morning of 4th
April, before General Baillie, who had displaced Argyll as chief
commander of the Covenanters, and Hurry, his subordinate,
could grasp the fact that he had left the Perthshire hills.
His Highlanders had already begun to burn and plunder
when the tidings of Hurry's advance forced them to desist
and follow their leader, with some loss, away once more, in a
masterly retreat, to the mountains beyond Brechin. A move
ment of Hurry towards Inverness, by way of Aberdeen, drew
him away from the Perthshire hills northwards as far as
Auldearn, where Hurry risked an encounter, and lost the
greater part of his army in consequence (8th May). Two
months later, in the beginning of July, came the turn of his
superior, Baillie, who had joined him in his retreat eastwards,
at Alford, Donside. Alford fight opened the road to Mon
trose, for whom the Presbyterian ministers had prayed and
prophesied defeat again and again, down into the Low
lands once more, and Baillie's attempt to stop his progress
at Kilsyth (15th August) cost him all his artillery and the
greater part of his men, who were routed and slaughtered by
the thousand* With the capture of Glasgow, both High
lands and Lowlands were at the mercy of the irresistible
Royalist leader, who bade fair to cross the Border and
retrieve the cause of Charles in England itself. Unfortun
ately for him, many of his Highlanders left him, as so often
before, to enjoy the fruits of their victories, and it was with

Defeat and Retribution. 437
but a handful of foot and horsemen that he was forced by
David Leslie at Philiphaugh, on the 1 3th September, to fight
an impossible battle against the veteran cavalry, which he had
hastily led from England. Fighting or fugitive, the greater
part of his little band was cut in pieces — the Irish prisoners,
in spite of promised quarter, and even their women and
children, being, at the instigation of the fierce Covenanting
preachers, slaughtered among the rest. In the sack of Aber
deen, the Irish had barbarously murdered women and
children. After Philiphaugh, the Covenanters had better
have kept silence over such savage deeds.
Montrose's scheme had thus a ghastly ending. He him
self, with a few horsemen, escaped from the field to the High
lands, and was ultimately allowed to retire to the Continent.
The executioner's axe thinned the ranks of his followers who
had the misfortune to be taken. " The work," as the Rev. Mr
Dickson said with great satisfaction, "goes bonnily on."
The bloodthirsty tone of the preachers was detestable,
though in time of civil war some allowance must be made
for harsh methods and vindictive feelings. Parliament,
sitting at St Andrews in December, finished " the work," by
summarily ordering the remnant of captured Irish to be exe
cuted without trial. There could be no mercy for invaders
who were Papists as well as rebels.
"If we settle affairs here" (in England), wrote Baillie,
" Montrose will melt like a snail." The rout at Naseby had,
indeed, several months before the rout of Philiphaugh, made a
further career of victory impossible. Montrose might issue
forth with his Highlanders from the hills in spasmodic fashion
and smite the raw Covenanting levies of Fife or Clydesdale.
In the open, against David Leslie's veterans, there awaited
him only the disaster of Philiphaugh.
Though he inevitably failed in his desperate mission, he
succeeded in making an indelible impression on both con
temporaries and posterity. His military talents were cer
tainly extraordinary, though he had only mediocrity for an
enemy. His enthusiasm was genuine, if misdirected. These
facts entitle his name to respectful remembrance. He be
longed to that order of men who, on the whole, act from
generous principles, though circumstances and personal feel-

438 A Critical Estimate.
ings contributed their share to the general impulse. But such
men are apt to be dazzled with the glamour of a name. They
do not stop to consider that men like Charles I. are hardly,
after all, worth risking the scaffold for even if they represent
what may seem a sacred cause. They are partisans pure and
simple, and their admirers are usually of the same quality.
Such could have no adequate conception of the principles for
which Parliamentarian and Covenanter had grimly fought in
spite of their narrow dogmatism. They are too wrapped up
in their own fervour, their own prejudices, to perceive the
bearing of ideas apart from words. Looking at movements
and not at men, Montrose was a romantic enthusiast to whom
the mere glitter of a crown meant far more than the simple
majesty of human rights. It was because he was incapable
of appreciating the rights of men that he became the im
passioned crusader of the rights of one man. The inmost
feeling of him is that the word of Charles should, in this con
troversy, be the last word, and that he, as Charles' champion,
should equally lay down the law not only to the people, but
to his rivals among the nobility. His proud self-conscious
ness could not brook any master but the king. Happily
there were other men who believed as intensely as he that
they should have something to say in these controversies,
whether in Church or State, and to their dogged, if by no
means attractive dourness in having their say, despite auto
cratic kings and would-be autocratic marquesses of the Mon
trose type, we owe it that Great Britain did not sink to
the level of the France of a Louis XIV. in the matter of
political liberty.
After Philiphaugh Charles really had no alternative but to
surrender either to the Parliament or the Scots. In resolving
to surrender to the Scots, he persuaded himself that he was
making the best of the miserable plight in which the war had
landed him. The alliance between the Parliament and the
Covenanters had not, as we learn from Baillie's letters, worked
smoothly. After Marston Moorthe friction had gone on increas
ing. Independent and Presbyterian, whether in the Parliament,
the Westminster Assembly, the army,could not con sort together,
or only consorted together under pressure of necessity. The
narrow dogmatism of the Scottish and English Presbyterian

Friction between Presbyterians and Independents. 439
divines was, though from different reasons, as obnoxious to
laymen like Cromwell and clerics like Goodwin as it was to
Charles and his bishops. The Independents urged the plea
of liberty of conscience for those who objected to the full
blown system of Presbyterian Church government and dis
cipline, to which the Covenant had committed the Parlia
ment. They not only fought against it in the Assembly ;
they appealed to the Lords and Commons, and the Ordinance
of 4th January 1645 annulling the Acts of Uniformity in
favour of the Prayer Book and substituting the Directory of
Worship, presented by the Assembly to Parliament, was
strongly resented by the champions of " liberty of conscience."
The Ordinance of 23rd October (1645) ordering every parish
to receive a copy of the Directory, and every clergyman to
observe its directions in the conduct of worship, under severe
penalties for refusal in the third instance, only embittered the
contention on religious grounds. As Baillie's letters amply
show, the Westminster Assembly was not only " a world of
debate," but of intrigue and contention on the part of two
irreconcilable parties.
On other grounds there were bickerings and jealousies
enough. The anti-Presbyterian party claimed Marston Moor
as an English, more especially a Cromwellian victory. The
Scots protested, and attributed the rout of Rupert and New
castle to David Leslie and Baillie. If old worn-out Leven
had fled in a panic-stricken moment, Manchester and Fairfax
had been carried off the field in the flight of part of the
English foot and horse. Moreover, since Marston Moor, the
Scots, according to the Independent partisans, had done
nothing but hang about the north (Montrose being on the
war-path, they ought to have added), and had later retreated
from the siege of Hereford. They had, too, lived on the
country, and perpetrated many violences in so doing. Nay,
they were even accused .of carrying on after Naseby a
treacherous intrigue with Charles himself, and must, in con
sequence, clear out of Carlisle, Newcastle, and other English
towns in their possession. In all which the Scots saw the
machinations of the Independents, who decried their services
and invented sinister rumours of purpose to bring about a
rupture. They reminded them that Leven had been com-

44° The Tension Increases.
pelled to detach a large force of cavalry to cope with Mon
trose in Scotland, and had thus been obliged by the
paucity of numbers to retire from Hereford before Charles'
approach. They charged them with intentional neglect to pay
the promised monthly subsidy in order to force the Scottish
army to subsist by violence, and thereby render it odious to
Englishmen. They were clearly, according to Baillie, whose
ecclesiastical convictions did not, however, tend to make him
an over-charitable judge, driving matters in the direction of a
quarrel in order to become masters of the situation. With
the turn of fortune in favour of the Parliament and the cer
tainty of a complete triumph, the services of the Scots were
minimised, and their inactivity since Naseby gave some
colour of justification to the tendency to criticise and depre
ciate. The Covenant had evidently become a burden instead
of a bond of harmony. " Had our army," wrote Baillie on
the 15th January 1646, in reference to the difficulties of
getting the Presbyterian system under weigh, " been but one
15,000 men in England, our advice would have been quickly
followed in all things ; but our lamentable fortune at home
and our weakness here makes our desires contemptible. Had
the king been of any considerable strength, fear would have
made them careful to do duty ; but their great success, the
king's extreme weakness, and our miseries makes them follow
their own natural humours, to the grief of sundry gracious
men of their own number." He forgot to add that the
exacting spirit of himself and his fellow-Presbyterian divines
in resisting all overtures for toleration was very largely re
sponsible for the growing cleft between the two peoples.
Had the Presbyterians left a margin for dissent alongside
the Established Presbyterian Church, they would have gone
a long way to lessen the danger of rupture. To men like
Baillie, with their dogma of the divine right of Presbytery, all
opposition was necessarily unwarrantable hostility.
The religious quarrel only too surely portended political
friction as well. The Scottish Commissioners objected on
various grounds to the Parliament's attitude on the question
of the renewal of peace negotiations. They complained in
some papers, presented in April 1646, of the slackness in fully
establishing the Presbyterian system as concluded by the

The Scots Critical ; the Parliament Angry. 44i
Westminster Assembly. They demanded a clear under
standing on this point as the basis of any peace negotiations,
and deprecated the proposed appointment of Parliamentary
Commissioners to control ministers and elders in the exercise
of discipline, as an undue subordination of the Church to the
Parliament. They objected, in reference to the militia, to the
absolute negation of the rights of the crown as an attempt to
subvert the constitution, and required the recognition of this
right along with that of the Parliament. They denied that
the Treaty of November 1643 between the two kingdoms was
a mere temporary arrangement, and insisted that it was still
binding in every particular. They further desired that the
Lords and Commons should concur with them in proposing
that the king should henceforth eschew the practice of non-
residence in his northern kingdom, and spend one year in
every three in Scotland, and that a fair share of the offices in
the royal household should be held by Scotsmen.
The Lords and Commons by no means relished this
critical Scottish attitude, and their dislike was lashed into
towering indignation by the publication of these papers
without assent given. They suspected the Commissioners of
a desire to steal a march on them with the public, and ordered
the offensive print to be burned by the hangman, and its
author proclaimed an incendiary (14th April). Three days
later they published a counterblast of their own, disclaiming
any intention to recede from the Covenant or alter the funda
mental constitution, and pointing to the fact that they had
established Presbyterianism as evidence of their sincerity, but
insisting on the right of Parliament to supreme jurisdiction
over the Church courts by means of Parliamentary Commis
sioners, and on the necessity of settling the question of the
militia in such a way as to preclude the exercise of arbitrary
power for the future. They could not, in particular, " grant
an arbitrary and unlimited power and jurisdiction to near
1,000 judicatories to be erected within' this kingdom," nor
would they agree to the exclusion " of the power of Parlia
ment in the exercise of that jurisdiction."
On the other hand, the Scottish Parliament, convened at
St Andrews in the beginning of 1646, added its complaints
and representations to those of its Commissioners, and sent

442 Rival Overtures to Charles.
letter upon letter exhorting the Lords and Commons to
establish religion in accordance with the Covenant, pressing
for the despatch of peace propositions to the king, complain
ing of arrears of pay, and resenting the insinuation of under
hand dealing with his majesty as a malicious and totally
unfounded aspersion of their honour (February 1646). So
acute had the tension between Presbyterian and Independent
become that zealous Presbyterians like Baillie are even found
regretting that the king had been only too well beaten. More
over, the Scottish Commissioners had, since the autumn of
1645, been exchanging views with Montereul, Mazarin's agent
in England, for the purposq of bringing the king, through
the mediation of France, to accept terms satisfactory to
them and at least the Presbyterian section of the Parlia
ment. They had even sent Sir Robert Murray to Paris to
persuade Mazarin to intervene with the queen and Charles
to this end.
On the other hand, there is evidence enough of overtures
of the Independents to the king for their own ends. " The
king," notes Clarendon, " used all the means that occurred to
him, or which were advised or proposed by others, to divide
the Independent party and to prevail with some principal
persons of them to find their content and satisfaction in
advancing the king's interest. . . . And it was thought to be
no ill presage towards the repairing of the fabric of the
Church of England that its two mortal enemies (Presbyterians
and Independents), who had exposed it to so much persecution
and oppression, hated each other as mortally, and laboured
each other's destruction with the same fury and zeal they had
both proscribed her."
Thus at the very time that Charles' fortunes seemed
utterly desperate, both sides were competing for the honour
of making terms with him, and intriguing their hardest to
outwit each other. Both might thus with reason charge the
other with underhand dealing with the enemy, and their con
sciousness of the fact did not tend to improve their humours.
Here, then, was what might seem to Charles a providen
tial deliverance from utter ruin. " The king," noted Mrs
Hutchinson, " had hope by their divisions to prevail for the
accomplishment of his own ends." He was not after all, it

What the Scots were Prepared to Do. 443
seems, a forlorn fugitive with his enemies at his heels. Both
sections of these enemies were holding out what might appear
a helping hand. Which would he take ? On the whole, the
Scottish hand looked the more trusty of the two, and, through
Montereul, he kept for some months essaying the efficacy of
endeavouring to extricate himself from his straits by its aid.
On what conditions could he do so? It is difficult to say
with accuracy, for Montereul's negotiations with the Com
missioners in London throughout the winter of 1645-46 were
lengthy, and, as reported by him, not satisfactorily clear
or implicitly trustworthy ; while Murray's interviews with
Mazarin at Paris in November and December 1645 are like
wise somewhat misty. From a letter to Ormonde, written on
the 3rd April 1646, Charles appears to have imagined that he
had won over, through Montereul, the Scottish Commissioners
to the proposal to join their forces with his in order to secure
peace and vindicate his just rights. Nay, they were, it seems,
prepared to join with Montrose and " his well-affected sub
jects of England " to compel the acquiescence of the ill-
affected. They were willing, apparently, in their anxiety to
secure Charles (if we may trust Montereul), even to waive not
merely his acceptance, but his approval, of the Covenant!
Their compliance in this superlative point is certainly sus
picious, and, as even Clarendon admits, the impressionable
and not over-scrupulous French envoy had evidently taken
too sanguine a view of their admissions. Charles, at any rate,
was merely, as he told the queen, trying to " manage " them
as his most likely saviours in a desperate situation. With his
usual shiftiness he attempted to keep both Presbyterians and
Independents in play, though circumstances forced him to try
to make the Scots his greatest dupes. " I am endeavouring
to get to London," wrote he to Digby on the 26th March,
" so that the conditions may be such as a gentleman may own,
and that the rebels may acknowledge me king, being not
without hope that I shall be able to draw either the Presby
terians or the Independents to side with me for extirpating
one or the other, (so) that I shall be king again."
This policy of manipulation was characteristic, but it was
dashed, as far as the Scots were concerned, by the firmness
of Balcarres and Dunfermline, the Commissioners with the

444 Charles Surrenders to the Scots.
Scottish army, who absolutely refused to entertain the
Montereul version of the agreement with their fellow Com
missioners at London, and demanded an explicit guarantee
as to the establishment of Presbytery, not merely vague
references to conscience. Charles must, moreover, abandon
Montrose to the extent at least of his going into exile.
Montereul expostulated in vain, and sent a disconsolate
epistle to Oxford, cursing Scottish perfidiousness and begging
Charles to give the Scottish camp a wide berth if he could.
" Abominable, relapsed rogues," burst out Charles on hearing
the news. Shrewd they were, at any rate, for they knew very
well, as Montereul himself informs us, that Charles had said
that he would rather die in a ditch than sanction the Presby
terian establishment in England. There was now, at all
events, no time to dispute the point, and ultimately he was
forced, by Fairfax's approach, to escape from Oxford in the
end of April and throw himself on the protection of these
relapsed rogues. With them at least, Montereul assured
him, he would be safe. " The Scottish camp," j&r.ote he to
Mazarin, " was the place where he has least to fear,, and
whence he can more easily arrange his affairs." Thte was
strange language for the man to use who had had his eyes
opened to the depth of Scottish perfidy.
Into the camp of these relapsed rogues Charles, accord
ingly, rode on the morning of the 5th May, after roaming
very hesitatingly for about a week on the road between
Oxford and Newark. At the last moment, it seems, he had
managed to patch up a verbal understanding that he might
come with safety into their midst, that his conscience would
not be constrained, and that if the Parliament refused, upon
a message from him, to restore him to his rights and preroga
tives, they would espouse his cause and protect his adherents.
What this message was is not apparent, but that it included
the establishment of Presbytery seems certain.
Leven and the Commissioners professed in a letter to the
Committee of Both Kingdoms that his arrival was an absolute
surprise. Surprise it was not, however, in view of the fore
knowledge of his coming, and in this instance it is impossible
to clear the Scots of double-dealing. Surprise or not, there is
a ring of sincerity in Lothian's assurance of Scottish fidelity

"A Most Damnable Untruth." 445
to the Parliament. "Whatsoever be his disposition, our
resolution, you may be assured, is, that we shall never
entertain any thought, nor correspond with any purpose,
nor countenance any endeavour that may in any circum
stance encroach upon our League and Covenant, or weaken
the union and confidence between the kingdoms." A month
later (8th June) the Commissioners denied in still more
emphatic language, in view of the publication of the Ormonde
letter, that they had ever countenanced the agreement it pur
ported to detail. They roundly declared any assertion that
they had agreed to combine with the king against the Parlia
ment to be "a most damnable untruth." This was strong,
but it was not straightforward. It was a damnable untruth
that either the Scottish Estates or the Scottish army had
concluded or sanctioned any such agreement, but some of
their Commissioners had, on their own responsibility and
through Montereul, been negotiating with Charles behind
the Parliament's back, if they had not gone the length of
agreeing to sacrifice, the interests of their allies to those of
the king. They might, if they had had the courage to admit
the truth, have pleaded the fact that they were only trying
to counteract the tactics of the Independents, who were
equally guilty of clandestine dealings with Oxford. As it
was, their disclaimer only intensified the tension, and only
the necessity of avoiding a rupture for fear of worse con
sequences hindered, according to Baillie, both sides from
coming to blows.
That the Commissioners had no intention of playing the
Parliament false seems, however, clear from the testimony of
Charles himself. He had, indeed, exonerated them from the
charge of treachery in a letter, of date May the 18th, to both
Houses, from Newcastle, whither the Scottish army had re
moved, assuring them that he had given himself up to the
Scots with no intention of continuing the war or fostering
divisions between the two kingdoms. He was now, indeed,
so far amenable to Scottish influence that he recommended
them to settle the ecclesiastical question in accordance with
the advice of the Westminster Assembly. He would further
accept the Propositions of Uxbridge relative to the militia,
and promised full satisfaction in reference to Ireland. In

446 The Newcastle Propositions.
proof of his sincerity he issued an order on the ioth June to
what remained of his forces to surrender and disband.
Ultimately after lengthy consultation with the Commis
sioners and deliberation in both Houses, the Lords and
Commons formulated what were known as the Propositions
of Newcastle (30th June). To these the Commissioners, under
the skilful manipulation of Argyll, agreed with some remon
strance and reservation. They contained substantially the
same demands in regard to religion, the militia, Ireland, as
those of Uxbridge. They definitely invested in Parliament
the supreme control of the militia for twenty years, and they
were more specific as to the punishment of malignants —
especially the members of the " unlawful " Parliament of
Oxford. Further, all grants, &c, under the Parliament's
Great Seal should be accounted valid, and all sealed by
Charles since November 1643 invalid.
In the actual state of affairs the only alternative open to
Charles was to accept these propositions or abdicate. In the
former case he would have acknowledged his complete defeat
and his inability to act otherwise if he wished to retain the
name of king. In the latter he could have saved his con
scientious scruples and retired from an untenable position
with a heroic dignity. He adopted neither course, and pre
ferred to imagine that, though utterly beaten, he could still
manipulate parties, and by delay and intrigue change the
trend of destiny to his advantage. Even yet he clung to
the idea that a king who had lost irretrievably the stake in
the stern game of war, might still hazard his chances, with
nothing to play with, and win back in the end a substantial
part of what he had forfeited in the game. True, he might,
by yielding to the demands of the Scots in the matter of
the Covenant, hope to secure their goodwill and even their
co-operation in mitigating the terms of the Parliament.
But to accept the Covenant was to surrender Episcopacy,
which he still believed with his father to be the main
prop of monarchy. Moreover, as we learn from his letters
to the queen, he believed as fanatically that God was on
his side though he had failed, as his opponents believed
that He was on their side because they had succeeded.
This might be pious ; it was far from being practical, and

Charles Persists in Manipulating Parties. 447
persistence in this unpractical line of reasoning could lead to
feasible agreement with neither party. "If that man now go
to truckle on bishops and delinquents," wrote Baillie on the
16th May 1646, from the Presbyterian point of view, " it seems
he is mad." " Let the king," added he two months later— this
time voicing the sentiments of the Independents — " stick upon
anything we have sent, we shall quickly establish ourselves a
republick and forswear kings for ever ; for you have been so
exceedingly bloody and base that God and man calls for your
extirpation, especially now when the world sees your remedi
less obstinacy and full resolution to go on in this false and
hypocritical way ; better once for all to be rid of you and all
who will take your part."
In view of this stern spirit Charles' belief in diplomacy
was pure imbecility, even with the appeal to conscience to
consecrate it. Conscience, doubtless, there was in his imprac
ticable attitude, though his conscientious scruples were com
patible with duplicity as well as obstinacy. Even his ministers
and bishops could not get him to see that with such weapons
he was merely beating the air. He believed in himself, and
he still, as his correspondence shows, looked for deliverance
from one in whom he believed most next to himself, the
queen. It was very unfortunate that he was yoked with a
partner who was not only a foreigner, but a Roman Catholic.
His deference to his wife, it might almost be said, cost him his
throne. He was inclined, for her sake, to play fast and loose
with the Protestant sentiment of- the nation, and she it was
who helped most of all to inveigle him into those dealings
with the Catholic Irish and the Catholic foreign powers,
which riled his English and Scottish subjects so deeply. Even
Henrietta Maria, however, urged him to give way on the
religious question that kept him so far apart from his Puritan
subjects. She sent a second French diplomatist of higher
status than Montereul, the ambassador Bellievre, in July, to
try his art on English parties, but she sent along with him the
entreaty to concede Presbytery and, temporarily, the militia.
Charles was immovable. How could he concede Presbytery
without surrendering monarchy ? It was a one-sided conclu
sion, yet nothing would persuade him that Presbytery and
monarchy could consort together. " I assure thee," wrote he

448 Will not Give Way on Religious Question.
on 17th October in answer to the queen's reiterated arguments
in favour of concession, "that the absolute establishment of
Presbyterian government would make me but a titular king.
For thou must understand that the difference between the two
governments (Episcopal and Presbyterian) is one of the least
disputes now among us, even in point of religion, for under the
pretence of a thorough reformation (as they call it) they intend
to take away all the ecclesiastical power of the Government
from the crown and place it in the two Houses of Parliament.
Moreover, they will introduce that doctrine which teaches
rebellion to be lawful, and that the supreme power is in the
people, to whom kings ought to give account and be corrected
when they do amiss."
Still more ineffective were Henderson's arguments in favour
of Presbytery and the Covenant versus Prelacy. Charles was
almost as great an expert as his father in matters of ecclesi
astical polity. Not only was it a case of no bishop, no king,
over again ; Episcopacy was to him as much a divine insti
tution as Presbytery was to Henderson. It was, in truth, a
case of one fanaticism against another, and Charles was, in
this point, if possible, the more fanatic of the two. The dis
cussion was, however, carried on in a dignified and even an
amicable spirit. Charles appealed to history, tradition, and
the Bible in defence of the Episcopal order, and instanced the
obligation of his coronation oath to maintain it. Henderson
denied his inferences from Scripture, and insisted on the
pristine parity of presbyters. He told him very forcibly that
his coronation oath did not bind him to resist all change.
Otherwise legislation in opposition to old laws would be
impossible. " When the Parliaments of both kingdoms have
covenanted for the abolishing or altering of a law, your
majesty's oath doth not bind you and your conscience to the
observing of it ; otherwise no laws could be altered by the
legislative power."
In regard to more mundane points his only expedient was
procrastination. He would simply stave off extremities in
the hope of wriggling out of a straightforward agreement.
For the present " the best put-off" he could think of was, as
he wrote to the queen on the 24th June, the proposal to go to
London to negotiate directly with the Parliament. When^

Takes Refuge in Procrastination. 449
therefore, the Parliamentary Commissioners at last arrived at
Newcastle in the end of July with the propositions, he avoided
giving "a flat denial," and took refuge in the offer of a journey
to London. He knew well enough, as he told the queen, that
his request would be refused, but he would gain a few weeks'
delay. He knew, too, that he was risking the alternative, that
the Scots would retire and leave him to take his chance. He
would take the risk. With all the equanimity of the visionary
he was steering straight on the rocks. From this fate the
Scottish Commissioners on bended knees implored him to
save himself by offering to accept at least the modified pro
positions which they had formerly authorised Sir R. Moray
to send him through Montereul. Charles preferred procrasti
nation, and professed the usual platitudes of doing everything
possible " for the good and peace of his people " when he
should arrive in London !
To the Parliamentary Commissioners this was mere
juggling. Both the Parliament and their Scottish allies were
now of opinion that he had been allowed long enough to
indulge in generalities of this kind. It was time to proceed
to business, and business meant, primarily, the withdrawal of
the Scottish army, which had accomplished what it had
undertaken, viz., the efficacious assistance of its allies ;
secondly, an understanding as to what should be done with
the king. Accordingly, the Scottish Commissioners, on the
1 2th August, offered, in view of the royal refusal to accept
the propositions, to remove their army on the satisfaction of
their claims — a portion to be paid before withdrawal, the
remainder as should be agreed on. In doing so, they
expressed a hope that the Parliament would vindicate the
honour of their nation from the " execrable aspersions '' cast
upon it by partisan pamphleteers and others. But a week
before the ill-feeling against the Scots had found expression
in a resolution of the Commons that they had no further need
of the services of the Scottish army, and desiring it to with
draw on the pretext of inability to pay longer for its support.
Not a syllable about arrears of pay or gratuity, as stipulated
in the treaty. The collapse of the peace negotiations disposed
the majority to take a more equitable view of their obligations,
and on the 14th they passed an ordinance by 130 to 102 votes
VOL. III. 2 F

45° The Scots Agree to Withdraw.
to punish the printers and authors of scandalous reflections
on the Scottish people. They added a resolution to offer
£100,000 on the withdrawal of the army, and undertook to
pay whatever arrears should be found due according to treaty.
The Scottish Commissioners demurred, and handed in a claim
for £1,300,000. This they agreed to reduce to half a million
after some days' bargaining, and ultimately, after further
haggling, accepted £400,000 which the Commons voted on
the ist September. Half of the sum should be paid before
the withdrawal of the army, the remainder in instalments
extending over a couple of years.
The other question, What to do with the king ? was by
no means so expeditiously settled. The Scots redoubled
their efforts to persuade Charles of the necessity of giving
way. A special deputation sent by the Scottish Estates in
the beginning of September, and headed by the Duke of
Hamilton, pleaded and argued in favour of the propositions.
Charles merely reiterated his desire to go to London, and
added a visionary suggestion that Episcopacy should be
allowed to stand in the south-western dioceses. This merely
meant that Episcopacy should have a chance of maintaining
its hold on the nation till he should be strong enough to
overturn the rival system in its favour. The proposal was,
therefore, utterly untenable, and only showed that a satis
factory settlement was as hopeless as ever. Moreover, the
money question settled, the Parliament was not disposed to
tolerate Scottish interference in the matter. On the 18th
September, the Commons voted, and the Lords concurred in,
the claim to dispose of the person of the king as both Houses
should see fit. If they thought good to consult the Scottish
Commissioners further in the matter, their doing so should
afford no pretext for delaying the march of the Scottish
army. Against this decision the Commissioners vigorously
protested. In a number of speeches to a committee of both
Houses, Loudon claimed that the decision of the question
should depend on the consent of both Parliaments. He
appealed to the Solemn League and Covenant. He insisted
that the question affected Scotland as well as England. He
argued that as Charles was King of Scotland as well as
England, if the English should resolve to depose him and

The Question of the King's Fate. 451
the Scots retain him as their king, war between the two
nations would be inevitable. He even put in a plea for
allowing the king to come to London, and trying the efficacy
of a personal discussion. He alleged the obligation that lay
on the Scots, not to surrender the king, who had sought their
protection, without being assured of his safety.
To all which the Houses answered that they had an un-
disputable right to dispose of the fate of the King of
England, who had warred against his English subjects, had
been worsted in the struggle, and having refused the terms
offered him, must submit to their judgment. They denied
that the Covenant gave the Scots a right to interfere in the
internal concerns of England. They refused to sacrifice
English independence to such a construction, and they
resented the imputation that the English Parliament could
not be trusted to deal fairly with the king. Would the Scots
consent to such a claim if made by England in regard to
Scotland ? From 'this position no amount of argumentation,
protracted throughout September and October, would move
them, and the Scots had to face the question whether, if
Charles remained obdurate, they would give him up to the
Parliament, and eschew all further interference on his behalf.
The money question being settled, their duty, according to
the Parliament, was to hand over their prisoner and march
across the Border.
Unfortunately, Charles did not help to get them out of
their dilemma by offering any feasible terms beforehand. The
repeated rebuffs of his overture to go to London at last
wrung from him (12th and 15th October) the concession of
Presbytery for three or five years, and the militia for ten
years. Neither the Parliament nor the Scottish' Commis
sioners would entertain the offer. In this deadlock the voice
of the Scottish Estates spoke the decisive word. Under the
manipulation of Argyll, and in deference to the demand of
the General Assembly, they annulled, on 17th December, a
resolution passed under Hamilton's influence on the preced
ing day in favour of maintaining the king's just title to the
English throne, &c, and required him to accept the New
castle Propositions pure and simple. Otherwise, he must take
the consequences in England, and give up all hope of finding

452 The Royalist Outcry against the Scots.
a refuge in Scotland. Even if the English Parliament were
to depose him, Scotland would not interfere to prevent it, he
having refused the Covenant, the establishment of Presbytery,
and the other propositions submitted to him. The Scots
would, indeed, continue the Government without his co
operation. If, despite of these conditions, he ventured into
Scotland, he would be treated as a prisoner.
These consequences Charles, as the result of his policy of
procrastination, had now to face. On the 26th January 1647,
the Scots surrendered him to the English Parliamentary Com
missioners. Four days later they began their march home
ward from Newcastle.
Their conduct has been subjected to the bitter reproaches
of Royalist critics. In their view they first inveigled the
king into their clutches, and then basely sold him to his
enemies. This charge has been repeated from generation to
generation by Charles' sympathisers, or rather worshippers,
and still passes current in the pages of partisan writers.
Their judgment is largely influenced by sentiment, and senti
ment is not the best guide to the truth in this matter. These
partisan writers overlook the fact that the question of the
payment of arrears was merely incidental to the question of
Charles' fate. It is pure bias, or sheer trickery, to mix up
the two in order to make it appear that the motive of the
Scots in this transaction was to make mpney out of Charles'
person. The question of payment ran for a time parallel with
the negotiation between the king and the Parliament, owing
to the reluctance of the latter to face its treaty obligations.
But it was settled nearly three months (viz., on the ist
September 1646) before the negotiation for the surrender of
Charles was begun (viz., on the 24th December). The Scots
had, in fact, been pressing the Parliament for payment long
before Charles put himself in their hands. The Parliament
had been unable to fulfil its obligations, and had at one time
shown a disposition to bundle the Scottish army across the
Border without so much as a vote of thanks for its services.
The Scots were by no means inclined to submit to these
shabby tactics. They insisted, with ample justification, on
the settlement of their claims, and rabid Royalist partisans
would presumably have done the same in the circumstances.

Defence of their Action. 453
As long as they remained on FJnglish soil they had a sub
stantial argument in support of the discharge of the bill which
the Parliament had unequivocally undertaken to pay. The
Commons, under the influence of the Independent party,
had already twice coolly bidden them begone without even
thanks (19th May and 6th July 1646). Once across the
Border, it was very questionable whether they would be dis
posed to take a more just or generous view of their obliga
tions. The Scots would, indeed, have been singularly ingenu
ous had they refrained from mooting the money question,
for fear of being charged as mercenary traitors. They had
espoused the cause of their allies with a fervour equal to that
on the other side ; they had richly earned their stipulated
expenses in so doing. They were in great straits by reason
of the failure of the Parliament to pay them ; there was little
chance of their seeing their money if they went without it.
Charles' surrender was due not to the allurement of English .
gold, but to the impossibility of finally arranging terms such
as the Scots and their allies could accept. Up to the last
moment they had done their utmost to wring from him a
feasible reconciliation, and Charles evidently knew before
entering the camp at Newark that he would have to yield
their demand for the establishment of Presbytery. On this
point they were inexorable, and while entreating him to
comply, repeatedly warned him that, in the event of refusal,
they would be compelled to leave him to his fate. The
correspondence of the French diplomatists and other docu
ments allow of no dubiety on this point. Charles' obstinacy
made, in fact, his surrender inevitable.
But, urge the partisans, had they not undertaken to secure
the king's person and honour, and did they not, in handing
him over to the Parliament, surrender him to certain dis
honour and ultimate destruction ? They doubtless kept him
in restraint ; they could hardly, in the circumstances, separate
the king from the fugitive ; nor could Charles expect to be
as free at Newcastle as he had been at Oxford. They could
not, for political reasons, leave him to do absolutely as he
pleased, and if they pestered him with the religious question,
it must be remembered that both for him and for them the
religious question was the crux of the situation. And in

454 Impossibility of any other Conclusion.
handing him over to the Parliament they had no reason to
be apprehensive for his safety. In their anxiety on this point
they had long maintained their right to an equal voice with
England on the question of his fate. Their insistence had
given offence to their allies, because it involved the imputa
tion that Charles would not be safe in their hands. They
failed to convince the Parliament of the force of their claim,
and they desisted after a lengthy contention. After all,
the quarrel in which they had intervened was a quarrel
between Charles and his English subjects, and the argument
that it was for the English Parliament to say what was to be
done with the King of England in England was, on national
grounds, a strong one. But they did what was possible for
them to do to ensure that his safety would not be jeopardised
by his surrender. They demanded specific guarantees on this
point from the Lords and Commons, and both assured them
that they might rely on their integrity.
But should they not have allowed the king to retire with
them to Scotland? Impossible. The Scottish Parliament
could not sanction such a step in the face of their treaty
engagement with that of England and the opposition of the
General Assembly. To have done so, as Hollis points out in
his Memoirs, would have been equivalent to a declaration of
war between the two nations. This was exactly what Charles
wished. " In regard to the king's resolution to retire into
Scotland with the Scottish army," wrote Montereul on ioth
January 1647, "... he hopes to derive certain advantages
thereby. For instance, his presence there will encourage his
friends to seek means to re-establish him ; he will be able
more easily to escape there than by remaining in England,
and he will by his presence cause strife between the two
nations." It was certainly not for the Scots to gratify his
wish. Sources. — Lords' Journals, vi. ; Commons' Journals, iv. ;
State Papers (Domestic), 1644-45, edited by Hamilton;
Rushworth, v. and vi. ; Whitelocke, Memorials ; Cromwell's
Letters and Speeches ; Parliamentary History, iii. ; Claren
don's History ; Manchester's Quarrel with Cromwell, edited
by Bruce and Masson for the Camden Society (1875); see

Sources of Chapter XIX. 455
also an important Letter of Manchester accusing Cromwell
of insubordination, &c, in Camden Miscellany (1883). For
the military operations see the Fairfax Correspondence;
Ludlow's Memoirs ; Hutchinson's Memoirs ; Sprigg, Anglia
Rediviva — England's Recovery, being the History of the
Motions, Actions, Successes of the Army under Fairfax, by
Thomas Sprigg, Fairfax's chaplain (original edition, 1647,
recent edition, 1854) ; Ormonde Letters and Papers. For
Montrose's campaigns, Wishart (Montrose's chaplain), Me
moirs of Montrose (18 19); Baillie's Letters, ii. ; Spalding,
History of the Troubles in Scotland ; Guthry, Memoirs ;
Turner, Memoirs (1829) ; Patrick Gordon, A Short Abridge
ment of Britain's Distemper ; Mark Napier, Memoirs of
Montrose, ii. (1856) — the work of a partisan pure and simple,
though showing great research. Gardiner, History of the
Great Civil War, ii. ; Firth, Cromwell ; Terry, Life of Alex
ander Leslie ; Warburton, Rupert, ii. and iii. ; Markham,
Fairfax. For that part of the narrative relating to the negotiations
for Charles' surrender to the Scots, &c. — Lords' Journals, vii.
and viii. ; Commons' Journals, iv. and v. ; State Papers, edited
by Hamilton (1645-47); Acts of the Parliament of Scotland,
vi. ; Rushworth, vi. ; The Diplomatic Correspondence of Jean
de Montereul and the brothers De Bellievre, edited by J. G.
Fotheringham for the Scottish History Society, i. (1898).
This correspondence is of capital importance for the relations
of Charles and the Scots and for the Newcastle negotiations.
Montereul and Bellievre, being imbued with the absolutist
maxims of the school of Richelieu, were not, however, par
ticularly fitted to appreciate the independent attitude of men
like the Scots towards their king, and they were too apt to
see treachery in actions that would not square with their own
feelings of servile loyalty or that upset their diplomatic cal
culations. Letters of Charles I. to Henrietta Maria in 1646,
edited by Bruce, Camden Society (1856) ; The Nicolas Corre
spondence in Evelyn's Diary, edited by Bray, iv. (1852); The
Hamilton Papers, edited by Gardiner, Camden Society (1880) ;
A Secret Negotiation with Charles I., 1643-44, edited by Mrs
Gardiner for Camden Society (1883), in the form of letters
relative to early Independent intrigues with the king. See

456" Sources of Chapter XIX.
also for the influence of the queen on Charles, besides the
Memoirs of Madame de Moteville, her delineation of the
queen's character, written for the guidance of Bossuet, and
edited by M. Hanotaux for the same Society. Baillie's
Letters, ii. and iii. ; The Papers which passed between his
sacred Majesty and Mr Alexander Henderson, concerning
the change of government, in appendix to Aiton's Life of
Henderson and in Reliquiae Sacrae Carolina^ (1657) ; Carte,
Life of Ormonde, for Charles' letter to Digby of 26th March
1646; Clarendon State Papers, ii., ed. Scrope (1773), for
negotiations with Scots ; Gardiner, History of the Great
Civil War, iii. ; Ranke, History of England, ii.

CHAPTER XX.
Toleration — Church versus Sect — Religious and
Intellectual Liberty (1643-47).
WAS Presbyterianism a clerical tyranny, as both its Episcopal
and Independent opponents asserted ? Not necessarily. The
Presbyterian government was not a tyranny in the sense that
the one-man government of the bishops was. Under that
government the clerical element was balanced by the lay.
In all the Church courts the elder had a vote as well as the
minister, and as the elders were the nominees of the con
gregations, the people as well had a voice in ecclesiastical
affairs. As a system it is, therefore, unjust to call the
Scottish Church government a clerical tyranny. On the
other hand, the influence of the ministers was naturally pre
dominant in the Church courts, and practically, if not theoreti
cally, it largely depended on the character and opinions of the
clergy whether the system should tend to a moderate or
immoderate use of ecclesiastical authority. Unfortunately it
did tend under clerical influence to the repression of both
religious and intellectual liberty. The conflicts of the Re
formation and post-Reformation periods had hardened men's
views of both doctrine and polity, and the outcome of the
conflicts and controversies of nearly a hundred years was
not to mitigate, but to deepen, both prejudice and principle.^
Representative Presbyterians of the type of a Baillie — and he
a scholar and the Principal of a Scottish university — were
narrow zealots in both doctrine and polity. Their confession
of faith was the sum of all theological truth, and dissent from
it was not only an error, but a crime. Their system of Church
polity was divinely established, and- no other system, whether
Episcopal or Independent, could be tolerated. They inveighed
as fiercely against Anabaptists and other sectaries as against

458 The Presbyterian Party in England.
bishops. Nay, what was imperative in Scotland was also
imperative in England. Hence the questionable policy of
a religious as well as a political alliance with the English
Puritans. To a section of these Puritans this twofold alliance was
welcome. The Anglican Church was, indeed, Calvinist in
doctrine, and since the beginning of Elizabeth's reign there
was a considerable section of the clergy which favoured the
Calvinist Church polity as well. Among those who opposed
the bishops in the reigns of James and Charles were many
who did so not merely because of the abuses of prelatic
government, but because, like Cartwright and Trevor at an
earlier time, they believed in Presbytery as opposed to Prelacy.
It found, as we have seen in a previous chapter, a strenuous
literary protagonist in the pamphleteer, Leighton, one of
Laud's victims ; and Leighton's fellow-sufferer, Prynne, was
as ardent a crusader in its behalf as he was against stage
players and the Prayer Book. In the Commons the large
majority of the Root and Branch party were ready to sub
stitute the government of presbyters, somewhat after the
Scottish model, for the government of bishops. Even Crom
well was at this period sympathetic. London under the
auspices of the Long Parliament was overwhelmingly Presby
terian, and in other large cities, and more particularly in the
eastern counties, the Root and Branch policy could count on
a majority of adherents. Laud's coercive methods and the
Presbyterian revolution in Scotland had together sown the
seeds of the ecclesiastical reaction which blossomed into the
Clergy Disabilities Bill, the Westminster Assembly, and
ultimately the ordinance establishing Presbyterianism.
At the same time the Lords and Commons believed in the
supremacy of Parliament as opposed to the royal supremacy,
and they were not willing to go the length of acknowledging
the independent jurisdiction of the Church in spiritual things
as claimed and vindicated in Scotland. They feared, and not
without some justification, that an ecclesiastical government
such as the Scots desired to introduce, would tend, to quote
D'Ewes, to establish " such a tyrannical power as the bishops
had." For this apprehension the Scottish Presbyterian clergy
had themselves to blame. Theoretically, Presbytery might

Ecclesiastical Difference of England and Scotland. 459
be a democratic system, but the aggressive clerical spirit
did tend, in practice, to oppression and intolerance. Be
sides, England was not Scotland. The triumph of Presbytery
in Scotland had been a national triumph. The Presby
terian ministers had a hold on the bulk of the nation, whose
interests they had championed against an arbitrary, un-
national policy. They had maintained a long and valiant
fight with absolutism, and they had won in the end. They
deserved to win, and they had, on the whole, the national
sympathy on their side. Other influences contributed, such
as aristocratic discontent ; but, on the whole, the heart oT the
Scottish people went with their ministers in the battle for
Presbytery and the constitution. Very different was the case
in England. Here a very large section of the people was
wedded by tradition and training to the very system that the
Scots had uprooted, and even among those who sympathised
with the Scots on ecclesiastical and political grounds there
was no disposition to accept carte blanche an alien ecclesi
astical constitution. The most they would heartily accept
would be a modification of it. Even Prynne, the most in
defatigable of its pamphleteer champions, would have nothing
to say to divine right Presbytery. The sovereign power of
Parliament, he insisted in one of these effusions, must be
preserved over the Church. Presbytery should become the
national polity, but while granting it a monopoly of ecclesi
astical privilege and repressing sectaries of all kinds, Parlia
ment must take care to preserve its own supremacy against
clerical independence, ecclesiastical autonomy.
Moreover, there was a section of the Parliamentary
majority whose opposition to Episcopacy was actuated by
an even more thorough-going reaction against ecclesiastical
tyranny than that represented by a Prynne, and who cham
pioned liberty for the congregation and the individual con
science against any sort of corporate ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
whether Presbyterian or Episcopal. They substituted, in fact,
the congregation and the individual for the Church. Brown
ists, Barrowists, Anabaptists, Separatists, was the name by
which they had been distinguished in Elizabeth's reign.
Whitgift and the High Commission had suppressed their
meetings, hanged their leaders, and driven the stauncher

460 The Separatists.
section of their followers across the North Sea to Holland.
In the reign of James a number of them had ventured back
to England, and a couple of congregations had managed to
subsist in London till the zealous vigilance of Laud discovered
and suppressed them. But Laud could not stamp out the
Separatist spirit, and the meetings of these doughty sectaries
are traceable in London, in some of the eastern counties, in
South Wales, and more particularly in Bristol, throughout the
coercive Laudian regime. That regime succeeded, indeed, in
swelling the tide of emigration across the Atlantic, begun by
the Pilgrim Fathers in 1620. New England became the foster-
mother of the Puritanism proscribed in the Old, and this
Puritanism was largely of the Separatist type. It was from
New England that men like the younger Vane (for some time
Governor of Massachusetts), Roger Williams, Hugh Peters
(the New Model chaplain), Henry Robinson, Hanserd Knollys,
came back to become the leaders of that Puritan reaction so
fatal to both Charles and Laud. By the year 1644 their
adherents had become a distinct party in Parliament under
the name of Independents, with men like Harry Vane,
Cromwell, St John, to lead them, and they were as hostile
to the Covenant and the Presbyterian system, though on
different grounds, as Charles and Laud themselves. There
was considerable variety of theological opinions in this party.
A section of the Brownist, Separatist, or, as they were now
generally denominated, Independent exiles, first in Holland,
and then in New England, were so reactionary as to regard
the Church of England as anti-Christian, and to renounce all
communion with it. Its original prophet was John Smyth,
founder of a congregation at Leyden and a champion of
Baptist views. This section constituted the ultra-revolutionary
wing of the ecclesiastical reaction. A larger section, whose
prophet was John Robinson, the founder of another Leyden
congregation and organiser of the Pilgrim Fathers' expedition,
was less extreme. It recognised the Church of England as a
Christian Church, and in doctrine it was rigidly orthodox.
It avoided all theological vagaries usually denominated Ana
baptist. But it objected to bishops and all ecclesiastical
organisation that was not voluntary and completely autono
mous. Episcopal and synodical authority was alike un-

Views of John Robinson. 461
scriptural and objectionable. The members of each con
gregation were entitled, through their office-bearers, to rule
themselves, and in the last resort were the supreme authority.
" This we hold and affirm," wrote Robinson, in a " Justification
of Separation" (1610), "that a company consisting though
but of two or three, separated from the world, whether un
christian or anti-Christian, and gathered into the name of
Christ by a covenant made to walk in all the ways of God
known unto them, is a Church, and so hath the whole power of
Christ. . . . That this company, being a Church, hath interest
in all the holy things of Christ, within and amongst them
selves, immediately under him the Head, without any foreign
aid and assistance. ... In the Church the officers are the
ministers of the people; whose service the people is to use for
the administering and executing of their judgments, that is
for the pronouncing of the judgments of the Church . . .
against the obstinate, which is the utmost execution the
Church can perform. . . . And as the people's obedience
stands not in making the elders their lords, sovereigns, and
judges, but in listening to their godly counsels, in following
their wise directions, in receiving their holy instructions,
exhortations, consolations, and admonitions, and in using
their faithful service and ministry, so neither stands the
elders) government in erecting any tribunal, seat, or throne of
judgment over the people, but in exhorting, instructing, com
forting, and improving them by the Word of God."
Very unlike, this, both to Prelacy and Presbytery. The
government of the bishop and the government of the Presby
tery or Assembly are alike usurpations unknown to the New
Testament. It is not sufficient, in reforming the Church, to
root out Prelacy. The Puritans must eradicate all ecclesias
tical organisation that is not simply congregational. The
representatives of these congregations might, indeed, assemble
together for edification, but they possess no legislative autho
rity, and their decisions are not binding on individual con
gregations except as far as they choose to accept them.
As compared with the Presbyterians, these Independents
were, in the early days of the Long Parliament, but a small
faction. Nevertheless, they were not the men to hide their
light under a bushel now that the fall of Laud gave them the

462 The Independents.
opportunity to testify to the truth that was in them. The
debate of the question of a further reformation was not con
fined to the benches of the Lords and Commons, as the
plethora of petitions and pamphlets shows. Among these
effusions were some of a distinctly independent tone. While
Prynne, for example, entered the lists as a champion of Pres
bytery, his old fellow-sufferer, Burton, stood forth to proclaim
the tenets of Brown and Robinson. In " The Protestation
Protested," he claimed that Parliament, in reorganising the
national Church, presumably on Presbyterian lines, should at
least recognise the right of dissenting congregations to a
separate existence. If Parliament would set up a national
Church in place of that prelatically governed, it might do
so. But it ought not to force conformity to this national
Church on those who, like Burton, believed that the true
Church consisted of congregations of the visible saints, owing
subjection to no one but Christ. He, therefore, asked that
" a due respect be had to those congregations and churches
which desire an exemption." Parliament showed its apprecia
tion of this plea for dissenting liberty by imprisoning the
printer of the pamphlet in the summer of 1641, but the
opinionated Burton, it soon appeared, expressed the aspira
tions of many other singular persons as well. He found, able
supporters, more especially in some of the exiled ministers
from Holland and New England. From Holland came,
among others, Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye ; from New
England Hugh Peters, Thomas Welde, and others to join
issue with Presbyterians like Thomas Edwards.
To these Presbyterians and their Scottish henchmen, such
toleration as Burton claimed was equivalent to ecclesiastical
anarchy, dangerous alike to order and sound doctrine. When
the two parties came face to face in the Westminster Assembly
in July 1643, there was bound to be repulsion and contention.
The Independents were, it is true, an insignificant minority.
Their divines numbered but five out of fully one hundred, and
these were returned refugees from Holland, of whom Thomas
Gdodwin and Philip Nye were the leaders. Among the lay
members they could only count on the active sympathy of a
few friends of toleration, like the younger Vane and Lord
Say and Sele. There might be shades of difference of

The Westminster Assembly. 4^3
opinion in the ranks of their opponents — Erastian lawyers,
for instance, like Selden, Whitelocke, Oliver St John, who
disliked clerical autonomy and insisted on the supremacy
of Parliament even in ecclesiastical affairs. The vast majority,
lay and cleric, was, nevertheless, in favour of an enforced
form of government on the Calvinistic model, and strenuously
opposed the toleration of sects, of whatever texture, outside the
national Church which they had met to fashion in the mould
of laborious debate.
Not that there was unanimity on many important points
even on the side of the majority. The party spirit as well as
the intolerant dogmatism of the Assembly is clearly reflected
in the letters of Baillie, who, with Henderson, Gillespie,
Rutherford, and a couple of elders, represented the Scottish
Church. It would be guileless, indeed, to think of the
Assembly as a Council inspired solely by the Spirit of God,
and decreeing the truth in these matters merely in deference
to the Divine will. It had met in obedience to the command
of Parliament to settle a controversy that had raged in Eng
land for eighty years, and the wonder is that it managed to
reach any conclusion at all. That it did so was owing, not
merely to its industry in discussion and prayer, but to the
proficiency of some of its leading members in the arts of
intrigue and political management. Baillie, while indulging
in the unctuous phraseology characteristic of the ecclesiastical
politician, reveals to us in his own artless fashion the stratagems
and little plots which often disarmed an opponent or pre
vented an explosion. It was by dint of these little plots
and stratagems, as much as by prayerful debate, that the
Assembly finally routed the Independents, and enforced its
own intolerance as a substitute for that of Laud on the
English nation.
In the earlier stages of its history there was indeed an
inclination, from political motives, to treat the Independent
opposition with some consideration. "It was my advice"
(to the Assembly), wrote Baillie in December 1643, " which
Mr Henderson presently applauded, to eschew a publick
rupture with the Independents, till we were more able for
them. As yet a Presbyterie to this people is conceaved to
be a strange monster." Nor would it do to alienate, in the

464 Dissension in the Assembly.
unpropitious state of the Parliamentary cause at this date,
the leaders of a party which, however insignificant in the
Assembly, was strongly represented in the army. " With
Independencie," reported Baillie in the same month, "we pur
pose not to meddle in haste till it please God to advance our
armie, which we expect will much advance our arguments."
Whilst thus waiting on fortune, the Assembly professed in
a Declaration, of date 23rd December, a desire to forbear
with those " whose consciences cannot in all things conform
to the public rule," as far as God's Word would allow it to
do so. As the debate proceeded, however, the rift between
the two parties inevitably widened, and Baillie's tone becomes
correspondingly acrimonious and hostile. The Independents
had the temerity (in our reporter's eyes) to appeal from the
Assembly to Parliament in an " Apologetical Narration "
(January 1644), in which they recorded their history and
asserted their principles in vindication of their opposition,
and asked for at least a toleration in their native land equal
to that which they had received as exiles in Holland. Surely
a most reasonable request. Such was not, however, the view
of the Presbyterian majority, who resented the " Narration " as
an attempt to prejudice them in the eyes of the Parliament
and the nation, as well as an unsound testimony. Accordingly,
it both sharpened the debates within and accentuated the
pamphlet warfare outside. The suspicion that some of their
adherents were sounding the king at Oxford as to the pos
sibility of a toleration alongside an Episcopal, instead of a
Presbyterian national Church, did not tend to allay the rising
irritation. It was becoming clear, too, that Independency
was a wide word, and that to tolerate it would be to open
the door to all manner of sects. A variety of sects — Baptists,
Antinomians, &c. — was in fact already striking root in the
land. They had their votaries in the army, and if this army
of sectaries should prove victorious under the leadership of a
Cromwell, what would become of the Solemn League and
Covenant and a Presbyterian establishment ? The prospect
of an access of sectarianism was as appalling to the Pres
byterian as it had been to the Laudian imagination. In the
slow progress of debate, of which Baillie complains, the
eagerly looked for parturition of Presbyterianism might be

Demand for Liberty of Conscience. 4^5
strangled in the act. " The unhappie and unamendable pro-
lixitie of this people in all their affairs," lamented he, " except
God work extraordinarilie, is like to undo them. They can
put nothing to any point either in Church or State ; we are
vexed and overwearied with their ways."
Again and again the demand for liberty of conscience, the
spectre of sectarianism, added to this vexation. John Goodwin
(not Thomas, the refugee returned from Holland), vicar of St
Stephen's, London, and one of the most obnoxious of these
vexatious people, was, it seems, proving " a bitter enemie to
Presbyterie, and is openly for a full liberty of conscience to all
sects, even Turks, Jews, Papists" (May 1644). Again in
September : " That partie grows in strength and courage. . . .
•The great shott of Cromwell and Vane {apropos of Crom
well's Accommodation, or Toleration Order, accepted by the
Commons) is to have a libertie for all religions, without any
exception. . . . God help us !" Later (February 1646) : " We
have had many bickerings with the Independents in the
Grand Committee about ane indulgence for their separate
congregations. We have spent many sheets of paper on both
sides. . . . For this point both they and we contend tanquam
pro aris etfocis."
The Assembly, it may be said, could hardly help being
intolerant, and, from the practical point of view, it certainly
was not easy to admit the Independent demand to be allowed
to hold charges in the national Church without accepting its
organisation. Moreover, their claim to exclude from Church
membership all persons who did not satisfy them in the
point of regeneration might lead to a pharisaical tyranny
worse than that involved in the exercise of Presbyterian dis
cipline. They held, too, certain dogmas, such as predestina
tion, which were essentially intolerant in the sense that they
tended to aggravate the narrowness of the theological spirit.
Nevertheless, their adherence to toleration as a principle was
infinitely to their credit, and if the Presbyterians had read
Calvin less and Christ Himself more, they would have learned
that belief in this principle was not the heresy that they took
it for. The spirit of a Goodwin was, in this particular, much
more in accord with that of Christ than the. superciliously
intolerant spirit so typically represented by a Baillie. Un-
VOL. III. 2 G

466 Parliament Decrees Presbyterianism.
fortunately, despite strenuous Independent obstruction, it was
this spirit that triumphed with the triumph of the dominant
party in the Assembly. In January 1645, the Lords and
Commons adopted, as a substitute for the Prayer Book, the
Directory of Worship, to which, as well as to the Confession
of Faith, the Independents gave their concurrence, and the
New Frame of Church Government, as a substitute for Epis
copacy, to which they staunchly objected. The English
Church thereby became officially Presbyterian, with parochial,
presbyterial, and synodical courts, and a national or General
Assembly supreme over all. Scotland and England were
ecclesiastically one, the Scottish Parliament and General
Assembly having immediately ratified both Directory and
Frame of Government.
Nevertheless, neither the Assembly at Westminster, nor
the English Parliament, let alone the English people, had by
any means spoken the last word in the controversy. In both
Parliament and Assembly there were hot contendings as to
the jurisdiction of this Presbyterian organisation ; in both the
question of toleration would ever and anon force itself into dis
cussion, whilst outside, in the nation at large, it raged with a
fury second only to that of the more terrible conflict in the
field. The Parliament, as Baillie lamented, was full of
Erastians, and in these Erastians the Independents found
ready co-operators in the task of, at least, limiting Presby
terian jurisdiction by Parliamentary supervision and
supremacy. They were by no means disposed to accept
the dogma of the divine right of Presbytery, or to invest in
the Presbyterian clergy a jurisdiction, even in spiritual things,
independent of the State. " The most of them," again notes
Baillie disconsolately on the 17th March 1646, "are incredibly
zealous for it (the supremacy of Parliament). The pope and
the king were never more earnest for the headship of the
Church than the pluralitie of this Parliament." The champions
of the Parliamentary headship would not hear of the pre
rogative of Christ in the sense of clerical independence, and
they succeeded in inserting an enactment in an ordinance
sanctioning the details of the Presbyterian organisation, of
date 14th March 1646, directing the appointment of Parlia
mentary commissioners to take cognisance of, control the

Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Parliament. 467
exercise of discipline in all congregations. Nay, they even
succeeded in getting a remonstrance from the Assembly
against this enactment voted a breach of the privilege of Par
liament, and as the result of this vote, its obtrusive members
were sharply told not to presume to interfere in legislative
matters on which their opinion was not asked. As to the
point in question, they were further told by the Commons in
a Declaration that Parliament could not " consent to the
granting of arbitrary and unlimited power of jurisdiction to
nearly 10,000 judicatures to be established in this kingdom."
Not only so ; they were informed, in addition, that Parliament
reserved the right to consider what amount of toleration might
be granted to " tender consciences that differ not in funda
mentals of religion." " The Parliament," said Fiennes on pre
senting this rebuke to the Assembly, " doth not pretend to an
infallibility of judgment, and the Parliament suppose that this
Assembly will not do so neither. If, therefore, the question
be but of a human judgment, subject to error, . . . they must
and do claim privilege that they have the supreme judgment
in making laws. . . . Why would you have, as it were, the
last word of a Parliament ?"
Evidently the friends in Parliament of the small Indepen
dent minority in the Assembly were sufficiently powerful to
secure them at least protection from Presbyterian persecu
tion. In June, indeed, after Argyll's speech on the necessity
of harmony and respect for the consciences of pious and
peaceable men, these Erastian sympathisers of the Inde
pendents so far lost their predominance in Parliament as
to submit to a modification of the enactment anent the
Parliamentary Commissioners. In deference to the Presby
terian opposition, the Commons consented to appoint one
Commission for the whole kingdom, instead of local commis
sions in each parish. Even so, they maintained the prin
ciple of the dependence of the ecclesiastical on the civil
jurisdiction. So far the Parliament had both vindicated its own
ecclesiastical supremacy and left a loophole for a toleration
of which it was to be itself the judge. How small was the
loophole which the Erastian legal mind would concede may
be judged from the terrible ordinance against blasphemy,

4^8 Ordinance against Blasphemy.
proposed on 2nd September 1646. For this atrocious pro
posal the aggressive spirit of the more incontrollable sectaries,
like Lilburne, on the one hand, and the dour dogmatism of
Presbyterian divines, on the other, were responsible. The
Commons, it seems, in the exercise of their supreme head
ship, were prepared to sentence to death any one who
denied the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and
to imprison for life those who inveighed against Presbytery
and infant baptism. Happily, in the press of other business,
their bloodthirsty zeal did not in the meantime go further
than a second reading, and a reference of the terrible edict
to a Committee.
In their treatment of Laud, the Lords and Commons had
already given a foretaste of what their ecclesiastical headship
meant for those who presumed to differ from them in ecclesi
astical matters. As in the case of Strafford, Laud was
arraigned on a charge of high treason, but, as in Strafford's
case, the Lords refused to see high treason in the crimes laid
to his charge. Once more their respect for constitutional
form drove the Commons to seek an expedient in an ordin
ance of attainder, and once more their insistence hustled the
Lords into compliance (4th January 1645). Six days later,
Laud's head rolled on the block. The old archbishop, like
Strafford, died because he was the representative of a system
which his opponents hated with a perfect hatred. For the
convulsion arising from his abuse of ecclesiastical power, he
had his own share of responsibility, and from this standpoint
his punishment was not altogether indefensible. The plea
of moderation might, nevertheless, well have been allowed to
at least leave him to languish out his old age behind the
bars of the Tower. Moderation is, alas, not the virtue of a
revolutionary age, and Laud could hardly expect to experi
ence the benefit of a virtue which his own arbitrary and
domineering spirit had done so much to discredit. He was
at last brought to bay before the intolerant spirit which the
hatred of the man and his system had steeled in the hearts
of Presbyterian and Independent alike. The man who per
sisted in enforcing his will on those who differed from him
with fine, imprisonment, mutilation, ran the risk of the
scaffold when the fortune of war had given his victims the

;Fate of Laud. 469
power to execute vengeance on his aged head. Mingled with
their resentment and their sense of justice, there was, un
fortunately, a strain of rabid intolerance, not by any means
consistent with their protestations against tyranny. In the
strange vortex of events, Laud died, indeed, as the victim of
that spirit of bigotry which his own intolerance had only
fanned, instead of mitigated. Puritan dogmatism, as well as
the Puritan aspiration of liberty, found in him its atonement.
In his last utterances on the scaffold, he prayed God to con
found the devices of his enemies and to restore legal govern
ment and liberty to his distracted country. In a sense he
prayed aright ; he forgot to confess that he himself, by his
aggressive regime, had done his best to bring things to this
pass, and he died as the victim of that intolerance which he
had thus done his utmost to conjure.
It is sufficiently apparent, then, that there was not much
to choose from, in the matter of real toleration, as between
Assembly and Parliament. It is usual for the historians to
decry the Presbyterian system as essentially intolerant, and
to show the expediency of a Parliamentary supremacy over
the Church in the interest of true liberty. It is customary,
on the part of English historians in particular, to dwell on
the more moderate tone of Episcopacy as compared with
this bigoted system. It is, further, usual on the part of
Independent champions to denounce both Episcopacy and
Presbytery as equally tyrannical, and to claim for their side
a monopoly of true liberty. Alas, true liberty in this age
could claim a real patron in no , party, whether Episcopal,
Presbyterian, Independent. What Episcopacy meant for the
Nonconformist conscience the Laudian regime, thus trucu-
, lently avenged, had amply shown. What Presbytery was to
mean for both the Episcopal and the Independent conscience
might be concluded from the deliverances of the Assembly.
What any dissenter whom the Parliament chose to persecute
might hope from a Parliamentary - Presbyterian supremacy
was amply apparent from the proposed ordinance against
blasphemy. What even under the auspices of the Inde
pendents liberty of conscience might apprehend was proved
by the persecution of dissent in the New England colonies.
At this period each party was only too ready to persecute in

47° Views of Cromwell.
turn, when it had the power, and there is no reason what
ever for the judgment of many English historians, of various
persuasions, that intolerance was an essential characteristic of
Scottish Presbyterianism in contrast to other systems. Per
secution was the prerogative of every party and system in
power, whether in the England of Charles I. and Laud, or
the New England of Puritan refugees, or in the Scotland of
Henderson and Argyll, or in the distracted England of the
Long Parliament and the Westminster Assembly.
Was there, then, no possibility, in this convulsed age of
party and system, of the advocacy of something approaching
at least true toleration, real liberty ? Certainly not at West
minster, or Oxford, or Edinburgh, or Boston may we hope to
find it. May we, then^ look for it in that sphere where
Cromwell was supreme, in that army of Ironsides where it
was sufficient to be a faithful and valiant soldier in the
great cause of Roundhead against Cavalier? Here, indeed,
we find the toleration of expediency at least, and in Cromwell
this kind of toleration found its strenuous champion, who, in
defiance of Westminster dogmatism, succeeded in obtaining
from the Commons the Accommodation Order in favour of
"tender consciences" in September 1644. His pleadings on
behalf of the sectaries in the army have often been quoted,
but some of these incisive utterances on this point will bear
r"7 quotation to the end of tirne. " Sir," wrote he to the bigoted
Major-General Crawford (ioth March 1644), who had im
prisoned one of his subordinates as an Anabaptist, " the State,
in choosing men to serve it, takes no notice of their opinions ;
if they be willing faithfully to serve it, that satisfies. I advised
you formerly to bear with men of different minds from your-
1 self." Again, after Naseby, to Lenthall, the Speaker of the
Commons, 14th June 1645 : " Honest men served you faith
fully in this action. Sir, they are trusty ; I beseech you in
the name of God not to discourage them. He that ventures
his life for the liberty of his country, I wish he trust God for
the liberty of his conscience, and you for the liberty he fights
for." Later, to the same (after the surrender of Bristol, 14th
September) : " Presbyterians, Independents, all had here the
same spirit of faith and prayer ; the same presence and
answer ; they agree here, know no names of difference ; pity

The Toleration of Expediency. 47 *
it should be otherwise anywhere ! All that believe have the
real unity, which is most glorious, because inward and spiritual.
... As for being united in forms, commonly called uniformity,
every Christian will for peace's sake study and do as far as
conscience will permit. And from brethren, in things of the
mind, we look for no compulsion, but that of light and reason.
In other things God hath put the sword in the Parliament's
hands for the terror of evil-doers and the praise of them that
do well." Admirable words and refreshingly original, for
Cromwell, in virtue of the necessity of maintaining unity in
the army by recognising diversity, became the harbinger of
a great idea. The idea might be too great even for Cromwell
fully to grasp. He could not, for instance, bring himself to
tolerate a High Church clergyman, as the insubordinate
incumbent at Ely, who persisted in singing the service despite
Cromwell's stern veto, found to his unpleasant experience.
There could be no room in his mind for religious opinions
represented by men on the Royalist side. It was not tolera
tion in itself that he had grasped, but toleration for all and
sundry who would fight in the Puritan cause — the toleration
of expediency. For those who fought in the Royalist cause,
expediency, from the Cromwellian point of view, leaned all
the other way — towards repression and exile, if not towards
the scaffold. Still, his words have a noble ring in them and
show a glimmering of the future trend of things. . Certainly
the variety of opinion for which he asked accommodation was
large enough in the circumstances. In the army, and partly
in the nation, religious diversity had lately, been multiply
ing itself with bewildering improvidence. The Presbyterian
Baxter, who ventured to visit the army after Naseby and
became chaplain to one of its regiments, was horrified to
find not merely Independents and Anabaptists, but Anti-
nomians and Arminians arguing and asserting their shocking
tenets without the least respect for Presbyterian clergymen
like himself, or even the Westminster Assembly of Divines
(Dry-vines they scoffingly called them). " Their most frequent
and vehement disputes were for liberty of conscience, as they
called it ; that is, that the civil magistrate had nothing to do
to determine of anything in matters of religion, by constraint
or restraint, but every man might not only hold, but preach

472 Variety of the Sects.
and do in matters of religion what he pleased." These
sectaries had thus advanced beyond the old Brownists, as
represented by Robinson, and the New England Puritans,
who ascribed to the magistrate a certain jurisdiction over
the Church. They were more in unison, in this respect, with
the Baptist sectaries in Holland and their offshoot in England,
whose spiritual father was John Smyth. Nay, it seems, the
variety was greater than even Baxter noted. Besides Baptists
and Antinomians, who most., horrified the orthodox Presby
terian chaplain, we hear of* our old friends of Elizabeth's
reign, the Family of Love, of Seekers (still looking for the
true Church), of Anti-Sabbata jans (opponents of the Sabbath),
of Traskites (champions of the Jewish Sabbath), of Soul
Sleepers and Mortalists (contradictory of the distinction
between soul and body), of Arians, Socinians, Anti-Scrip-
turists, Sceptics, and even Atheists.
Here, then, was a fine brood for Cromwell to take under
his wing, and even if he limited his protection to "all that
believe," his proteges were still a most heterogeneous folk.
It was, nevertheless, among this heterogeneous folk — some
of whom were half demented with religious excitement — that
the toleration, not merely of expediency, but of principle,
found its strenuous champions. For this rrierit alone, they
deserve, despite their oddity, their ignorance, their argu
mentative sophistries, to be mentioned with great respect.
Some of them had, happily for the future of common
sense, but an evanescent existence. But to the Baptists
was reserved a great future, and to these Baptists who, since
the days of Thomas Munzer and Knipperdoling, had been
looked down on and persecuted as the waifs of the re
ligious world, the doctrine of toleration owes a greater debt
than to any other subdivision of the Protestant Church.
Let it be remembered to their immortal glory that, despite
contempt and death, they were the pioneers of at least
religious liberty as we understand it. Witness the following
daring sentiments, culled from the writings of their early
pamphleteers. "But your Majesty and Parliament may
please to understand that the Scriptures do teach that the
one true religion is gotten by a new birth, even by the
Word and Spirit of God, and therewith also it is only

The Baptists as Champions of Toleration. 473
maintained and defended. . . . Let it (then) please your
Majesty and Parliament to revoke and repeal these anti-
Christian, Romish, and cruel laws that force all in our land,
both prince and people, to receive that religion wherein the
king and queen were born, and that which is established by
the law of man." " I read that Jews, Christians, and Turks
are tolerated at Constantinople, and yet are peaceable, though
so contrary the one to the other. If this be so, how much
more ought Christians to tolerate Christians, whenas the
Turks do tolerate them ? Shall nve be less merciful than the
Turks? Or shall we learn (teach) the Turks to persecute
Christians. It is not only u. ,nerciful, but unnatural and
abominable, yea, monstrous for one Christian to vex and
destroy another for difference and questions of religion."
Such were the sentiments of Leonard Busher, member of
a small Baptist church in London, who, in 1614, presented,
in pamphlet form, " A Plea for Liberty of Conscience to King
James and the' High Court of Parliament then sitting." He
appended a variety of reasons in support of his thesis that iri
matters of faith, persuasion, not persecution, is the only Chris
tian method, and his reasons in support of it do the utmost
credit to his creed and his intelligence, although they failed
apparently to make the slightest .practical impression on king
or Parliament. Nor is it surprising, in the days of harsh
recusancy laws, whose slackness was the subject of Puritan
outcry in every Parliament of James' and Charles' reign, that
a toleration that would embrace even Papists, with some
reservations, should utterly fail to find a hearing. Busher
would except the consciences of traitors from the benefits
of his "Plea," to wit, those who engaged in seditious in
trigues in support of their religion. He would also limit
their liberty of discussion by the Scriptures. Otherwise, he
asked that "it be lawful for any person or persons,* yea, Jews
and Papists, to write, dispute, confer, and reason, print and
publish any matter touching religion, either for or against
whomsoever." Mr Busher was certainly the most enlightened man of
his generation in this particular — more enlightened by far
than the most shining dignitary of Church or University. It
only needed a plea for rational liberty per se, intellectual

474 Roger Williams.
liberty apart even from the limitation of the Scriptures, to
make his illumination perfect.
The same contention is reiterated in another of these
early toleration tracts, entitled " Persecution for Religion
Judged and Condemned," in the form of a dialogue between
Anti-Christian and Christian, with Indifferent Person for
listener (1615).
The arguments of this unknown scribe were repeated
five years later by another unknown scribe in " An Humble
Supplication to the King's Majesty," presented in 1620, and
consisting largely of quotations from the Scriptures and the
Fathers, in protest against persecution. Twenty-three years
later they were amplified by one who was not a nameless
member of some obscure Baptist fraternity, but one of the
most notorious characters of his age. This was Roger
Williams, who began his career, as the irrepressible and in
domitable protagonist of toleration, as a refugee among the
New England Puritans. These expatriated New England
Puritans, though professing Independent principles, were by
no means disposed to grant to others that liberty which they
claimed for themselves, as Williams experienced to his cost.
They laid the utmost stress on sound doctrine, and they
not merely thought it essential that a man should be sound
in doctrine, but they attributed to the magistrate the right and
the duty to see that he was so. The more moderate of the
Separatists of the Robinson type of mind, who had fled to
Holland and thence continued their flight across the Atlantic,
had recognised this duty and this right, and in Massachusetts
it was a fundamental law that no one was entitled to the
franchise who was not a member of the Church. Church and
State were, in fact, closely interwoven in this rigid Puritan
society. The magistrate as well as the minister had a certain
overseeing power over the belief and the conduct of the com
munity, and any one like the restless Roger, who claimed a
larger amount of individual liberty in such matters than this
rigid Puritan society allowed, was speedily made aware of the
fact. Williams, who arrived in the colony in 1630, must
needs object to this kind of dictation, and his objections were
the more obnoxious inasmuch as they touched the question
of the rights of the civil authority as established in Massa-

His Career in New England. 475
chusetts. For his restless, aggresssive disposition thus to
question established authority under Puritan auspices, and his
uncontrollable individualism in both religion and politics, he
was duly sentenced to banishment by the General Court of
the colony as an incorrigible anarchist in November 1635.
He just escaped being shipped back to England, and wan
dered southwards to become the founder of a new state and
the champion of liberty of conscience in the untried wilds
where he sought a new refuge, and to which he gave the
name of Providence. Here he was joined by a number of
sympathisers and followers, by one of whom he was rebaptized,
and in March 1644 he obtained from the Parliament a charter
for "the Providence Plantations." The great principle of
toleration was explicitly recognised by the Assembly which
met to frame a constitution under this charter. Freedom of
conscience was, in fact, the corner-stone of the democratic
little state, where religious belief was free as long as it was
not subversive of the constitution. " Let all the saints of
the Most High," decreed the Assembly, " walk in this colony,
without molestation, in the name of Jehovah, their God, for
ever and ever."
It was during his mission to England in 1643-44 to ob
tain the charter that Williams penned, in answer to Cotton,
one of his New England antagonists, "The Bloody Tenent of
Persecution, for Cause of Conscience Discussed." In form
it is a dialogue between Peace and Truth, and both Peace
and Truth evidently derived some of their arguments against
coercion in matters religious from the pamphleteers of James'
reign. Williams, indeed, prefaces the dialogue with a plea
for liberty, written by a poor Baptist prisoner in Newgate
twenty-four years before. This nameless sufferer ' for con
science, he tells us, being forbidden the use of ink, had
written down his thoughts with the milk sent him for his
daily sustenance for the benefit of his brethren. With these
ideas as his inspiration, Williams undertook to trace, in the
blood of the martyrs, the misery and mischief wrought by the
dogma of persecution throughout the ages. He was by no
means sanguine of his ability to convert his pugnacious
generation to an idea so monstrous as that Christians should at
last renounce this " bloody tenent " in obedience to the teach-

476 His Attack on Persecution.
ing of both Christ and history. " I confess I have little hopes
till these flames are over that this discourse against the
doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience should pass
current. . . . Yet liberavi animam meant, I have not hid
within my breast my soul's belief."
His definition of persecution is very comprehensive, and
shows that he had gone much further than those of his
contemporaries who were continually harping on liberty, civil
or religious, but had only a traditional and a very limited
conception of its real meaning. " I acknowledge that to
molest any person, Jew or Gentile, for either professing
doctrine, or practising worship, merely religious or spiritual,
is to persecute him, and such a person, whatever his doctrine
or practice be, suffereth persecution for conscience." He
would even refrain from persecuting Papists, if they gave
sufficient assurance on the score of civil obedience. Perse
cution, he insists, arises from the confusion of the ideas of
Church and State, and he denies absolutely that the civil
magistrate has any right to exercise coercive jurisdiction in
things spiritual. The Church is a spiritual community, dis
tinct from the world, and Christ never recognised the right of
the civil magistrate to interfere in its concerns. Besides,
persecution always defeats itself. It only confirms the
persecuted in their opinions. " Violence and a sword of steel
beget such an impression in the sufferers that certainly they
conclude that, indeed, that religion cannot be true which needs
such instruments of violence to uphold it." The Church or
society of worshippers may indeed exercise discipline and
exclude an unworthy member, but it may not call in the
aid of the civil magistrate. It cannot go further than a
spiritual sentence, and for the secular power to abet its
sentence is to pass beyond its province and arrogate a
right to do what God himself refrains from doing. Is it not
written that he that believeth not is damned, and is not this
sufficient punishment for any heresy that was ever invented ?
To this contention he holds all through his diffuse and rather
tiresome reasonings, despite every averment to the contrary,
whether made by Prelatist, Presbyterian, or Independent,
whether by Calvin, Beza, or Luther, or others of lesser
theological lustre. Against all such he quotes Scripture most

His Doctrine of Toleration. 477
profusely, and calls on the slaughtered saints to point his
quotations. It is difficult to follow him through the verbose
discussion, and is the less necessary as its main contentions
have happily become the commonplaces of posterity. But
such pregnant theses as the following deserve remembrance
to their author's eternal honour, if only as anticipations of
those maxims which, however self-evident to us, were by no
means axioms to Williams' contemporaries, whether they held
the Parliamentary or the Royalist creed. " It is the will and
command of God that, since the coming of His Son, the Lord
Jesus, a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or
anti-Christian consciences and worships be granted to all men
in all nations and countries, and they are only to be fought
against with that sword which is only in soul matters able to
conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God."
"God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be enacted
and enforced in any civil State ; which enforced uniformity
sooner or later is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing
of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and
of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls." Con-
trarily, "the permission of other consciences than a State
professeth only can, according to God, procure a firm and
lasting peace ; good assurance being taken, according to the
wisdom of the civil State, of uniformity of civil obedience
frQm all sorts."
Williams might not convince the Westminster Assembly
or the New England Puritan bigots. He had, at any rate,
read both history and the Bible more intelligently than all the
divines of that age or any age since the days of the apostles.
Happily his reading was destined to be the true one. His
verbosity may try the patience. His ideas are, for the most
part, the pure gold amid the heap of argumentative rubbish
piled up by the intolerant champions of both Presbytery and
Prelacy, who sacrificed spirituality to theological and ecclesi
astical polemics. It is, indeed, most strange that toleration in
religion had for long to fight such an uphill battle, to run the
gauntlet of the bigotry of the centuries. Whatever primi
tive Christianity was, it was not a national religion, to be bol
stered up by civil pains and penalties, and in ignoring this
fact, Presbyterians and Episcopalians alike misread the New

478 The Toleration of Christ.
Testament. . As if the Christianity of Christ had not been a
persecuted religion. In His days the Pharisees were the
mortal foes of liberty of conscience, and how did He de
nounce those intolerant Pharisees ! The whole career of
the great Teacher was a conflict with Jewish religious pride
and prejudice. He was the friend of the most despised of all
the sects of His day — the Samaritans. He spoke of God as
the Father, of whom all mankind were the children. He
suffered contradiction and contempt without a thought of
retaliation. He never appealed to the civil magistrate to
vindicate His cause. And yet, with a fatuous obtuseness, His
followers, with the exception of a poor, despised residuum
now and again, had persisted, under ecclesiastical influence, in
damning all who differed from the recognised nostrums of
their day for fifteen hundred years at least ! It was against
the pseudo-Christian spirit, whether Romish or Protestant,
that these English sectaries protested. They appealed to the
Christ of old to testify anew against Church or party that
dishonoured His name by claiming, like the Pharisees, for
their monopoly of doctrine, divine right and civil sanction.
They had, indeed, the faults of their virtues. They were
religious enthusiasts, and were apt to look on their neighbour's
creed with all the contempt of superior sanctity and wisdom,
if not to seek to repress it. They were very exclusive in the
tenacity with which they held certain peculiar beliefs, and
they were apt to overrate these beliefs, as if they were the
essentials of Christianity. In a word, they were weak on the
side of rationality, and in this respect they compare ill with
some of the Royalist divines, like Fuller, the genial author of
the "Church History" and the "Worthies of England." Fuller
advocated " a fair condescension in matters of Church reforma
tion." " Ruin and desolation is likely to follow," he insisted
in " Truth Maintained," " except moderation be used on both
sides." He found fault with both Royalists and Roundheads,
and he pleased neither. He was disowned by each in turn.
He fled from London to Oxford under the stigma of being
" too hot a Royalist." His denunciation of Royalist extrem
ists forced him from Oxford to become chaplain to Hopton's
army. The preacher of moderation had, in truth, a bad time
of it in those days. Moderation has no chance of a hearing

Fuller as Advocate of Toleration. 479
in the midst of a revolution. " The longer I see this war,"
said the preacher, " the less I like it and the more I loathe it."
To a Cromwell on the one hand, a Rupert on the other, this
could only appear as an execrable sentiment. Fuller illus
trated his position by a story worth repeating. " "I cannot but
expect to procure the ill-will of many, because I have gone
in a middle and moderate way betwixt all extremities. I
remember a story too truly applicable to me. Once a jailor
demanded of a prisoner newly committed unto him whether
he were a Roman Catholic. ' No,' answered he. ' What, then,'
said he, ' are you an Anabaptist ? ' ' Neither,' replied the
prisoner. 'What!' said the other, 'are you a Brownist?'
* Nor so,' said the man ; ' I am a Protestant.' Then said the
jailor, ' Get you into the dungeon ; I will afford no favour to
you, who shall get no profit by you ; had you been of any of
the other religions, some hope I had to gain by the visits of
such as are of your own profession.' I," continues Fuller,
" am likely to find no better usage in this age who profess
myself to be a plain Protestant, without welt, or guard, or any
addition, equally opposite to all heretics and sectaries."
The moderation of a Fuller and his like-minded friends,
Hales and Chillingworth, sprang from a kindliness of nature
and a predilection for intellectual liberty that were ill at ease
in the roaring sea of controversy around him. Such a man
could hardly be a partisan. Milton, on the other hand, united
in himself the spirit of the partisan with a thorough apprecia
tion of intellectual freedom. He was, in truth, the highest
type of the tolerant man on the intellectual side that the age
produced. He was, or at least became, himself a sectary,
but, unlike even the more advanced sectaries, he was not
content to harp on liberty of conscience merely from religious
motives. His vision was not limited by the Bible. To him
liberty for the human reason was as important as liberty for
the human conscience, and to him belongs the glory of
emphasising, elucidating the claims of this liberty against
even the Parliament itself.
As a partisan, he had done yeoman service in the crusade
against Episcopacy. In less than two years (1641-42), he
produced as many as four anti-Episcopal pamphlets. The
first of them, " Of Reformation Touching Church Discipline

480 Milton as Anti- Episcopal Pamphleteer.
in England," illustrates the idea common to the Puritans that
the English Reformation was a case of arrested development.
He had no appreciation of the historic continuity of the
English Church, or for the Antiquarians (Laud and his
school), as he called them, who had. Nor had he the slightest
reverence for fathers, schoolmen, or reformers whose names
were invoked by his opponents to sanction what he believed
to be error. He held that the slavish deference to mere
names, from the times of the apostles onwards, had been pro
ductive of untold mischief to the Christian Church. Even the
heroes of the English Reformation were no heroes to him, and
in this critical, independent spirit he laid about him without
the slightest consideration for the reputation or the dignity of
Churchmen, past or present. He hated the historic Epis
copacy as a usurpation of the rights of people aud presbyters.
For him bishops had been the oppressors of the Church and
the State since the days of Constantine at least, and he
expressed his conviction, in this first pamphlet, with a wealth
of expletives that not even the stately diction of other pass
ages can redeem from the charge of extravagant bias and
bitterness. He was as great a master of objurgation as
Luther himself. As a rabid Root and Branch man, even
Prynne and Leighton were no match for -him in this kind of
controversial art. Let us not forget, however, that Milton's
Episcopal-opponents gave as good as they got, and the fact of
this strong language may remind us that rabid dogmatism,
coupled with extravagant vilification of opponents, was, by
no means, the exclusive prerogative of dour Scottish pres
byters, as we are sometimes informed.
From his fertile pen came two other pamphlets, in the
same year, on the same subject — one on " Prelatical Epis
copacy " in reply to Usher ; the other a fierce personal attack
on Bishop Hall, entitled " Animadversions," in vindication of
Smectymnuus (the Scotsman, Thomas Young, his old tutor
and vicar of Stowmarket) and his collaborators, with whom
the bishop was in hot controversy over the Episcopal question.
A year later came a fourth, " The Reason of Church Govern
ment Urged against Prelaty." In this pamphlet he reasons
rather than objurgates, and contends, with the older Puritans
of Elizabeth's day, that Church government is prescribed in

His Plea for Intellectual Liberty. 481
the New Testament and is not to be fashioned on the model
of the Old, and that Prelacy, in its pomp and rites, is incom
patible with Gospel simplicity. 'Moreover, the Episcopal
jurisdiction conflicts with the idea of the Church as a moral
and spiritual community, and is mischievous to both Church
and State. For Episcopacy he would substitute a system
almost identical with the Scottish Presbyterian, to the extent,
at least, of establishing a consistory for the government of the
parish or congregation, and a General Assembly for the
government of the whole Church. In 1642 Milton was, for an
Englishman, almost as good a Presbyterian as a Baillie or a
Henderson could wish.
He did not long remain a Presbyterian. His " Treatise on
Divorce " — the fruit of an unhappy marriage — discredited him
in the eyes of his Presbyterian associates, and within about a
year of his last anti-Episcopal pamphlet he had edged away
to the camp of the sectaries, and to a freer atmosphere than
that of his former friends, the Smectymnuians, with whom he .
had collaborated in the attack on the bishops. The probability
is that he would have gone that way in any case. The man
who, in 1644, came forth as the champion of intellectual
liberty against the Parliament itself, could not long have
remained at ease within the narrow limits of Presbyterian
dogmatism. In November 1644 appeared " Areopagitica : A
Speech of Mr John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicensed
Printing to The Parliament of England." He had dared to
publish his " Divorce Treatise " without the license enjoined
by the Parliament's Ordinance anent Printing, and had got
into trouble with the Stationers' Company, and even with a
Committee of the Commons. " Areopagitica " was his answer
to these censorial attentions.
"As good kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a
man kills a reasonable creature ; but he who destroyes a good
booke, kills reason itselfe. ... A good booke is the pretious
life blood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on
purpose to a life beyond life." Be careful, therefore, he
exhorts, how you spill that reasoned life of man preserved and
stored up in books, how you strike at that ethereal essence,
the breath of reason -itself, and slay an immortality rather than
a life. Among the ancients only books that were libellous
VOL. III. 2 H

482 Protest against the Muzzling of Reason.
or atheistic were prohibited, and this liberality prevailed till
the Inquisition introduced a more rigorous use of the censor
ship. " Till then books were ever as freely admitted into the
world as any other birth." And what was the purpose of this
restriction? To strangle all reformation. For such an
origin and such an object, Parliament, he skilfully concludes,
can have no liking. Moreover, has it not been the practice of
good men in all ages to read both good and bad books ? And
the chief thing is not what, but to what purpose and effect we
read. As God has left to human reason the right use of meat
and drink by the exercise of temperance, so has He left to
human discretion the use of intellectual nourishment. Good
and evil are intermixed in this world, and the true way to
eschew evil is not to shun it, but, knowing it, to abstain from
it. " I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue un
exercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her
adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal
garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly
we bring not innocence into the world ; we bring impurity
much rather. That which purifies us is trial, and trial is by
what is contrary. . . . Since, therefore, the knowledge and
survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting
of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation
of truth, how can he more safely and with less danger scout
into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner
of tractats, and hearing all manner of reason." Why, if we are
to eschew books because of that in them which may be hurt
ful, we shall be debarred from reading the Bible itself, " for
that relates blasphemy not nicely, it describes the carnal sense
of wicked men not unelegantly {i.e., elaborately), it brings
in holiest men passionately murmuring against providence,
through all the arguments of Epicurus." We must, too,
eschew the Fathers, and not only destroy all heretical books,
but muzzle all learning to boot.
Further, the censorship does not secure the end for which
it is exercised. What avails it to shut and fortify one gate
against corruption, while you leave others wide open ? "If
we think to regulate printing, thereby to rectifie manners, we
must regulate all recreations and pastimes, all that is delight
ful to man." Music, song, dancing, eating, drinking, con-

Denounces the Censorship. 483
versation, even the open window must have their licensers.
To attempt this would be ridiculous as well as useless. " The
great art lies to discern in what the law is to bid restraint
and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to
work." The censorship is an impracticable absurdity, for , to
be effectual, Parliament must make a review of all books that
have ever been printed, and must employ an army of officials
to proscribe some, expurge others. And when all has been
done, the suppression of books would not lead to the suppres
sion of opinion, or heresy, or other illegal belief. Has the
Inquisition created a high morality in Italy or Spain ? And
as it is certain that no able man will waste his time in this
distasteful labour, which interferes with his own studies, only
ignorant and mercenary press correctors, remiss in their duty,
will be got to fill the office.
Further, the censorship is "the greatest discouragement
and affront that can be offered to learning and learned men.
... So far to distrust the judgment and the honesty of one
who hath but a common repute in learning, and never yet
offended, as not to count him fit to print his mind without a
tutor and examiner, lest he should drop a schism or some
thing of corruption, is the greatest displeasure and indignity
to a free and knowing spirit that can be put upon him."
What advantage is it to the man over the boy at school, he
asks, with a fine sarcasm, if he have only 'scapt the ferula to
come under the fescue of an imprimatur ?
It is in expatiating on the injustice and the hardship of
this subjection of the master-mind that Milton's prose rises
into commanding and spontaneous eloquence. His indigna
tion makes him forget his imaginary, august audience, and
he delivers himself, with unrestrained impetuosity, of the
passion that is boiling at the indignity of having to submit
to the judgment of some petty ignoramus. Genius at
the mercy of stupidity is a maddening thought to Milton,
as to the choice spirits of every artificially hampered age.
There is humour as well as pathos in his indignation, as he
describes the luckless genius trudging with the offspring of
his labour and his vigils to some " unlearned licenser, perhaps
much his younger," " to be his bail and surety that he is no
idiot or seducer," And does an inspired thought come to

484 Revolts against Protestant Bigotry.
him whilst his work is being printed, back he must go to the
liceriser, " perhaps a dozen times in one book," and keep the
press standing still till he find him at leisure to signify his
pleasure, — to express " the hidebound humour which he calls
his judgment." His anger is increased by the reflection that
all the master-minds of past times must lower themselves to
the measure of this petty functionary, whenever a reprint
is called for. Such treatment might be a worthy punish
ment for a man who has written a scandalous libel, but it is
an intolerable bondage for a free spirit and a gross libel on
the intelligence of the nation. Moreover, it is a poor compli
ment to the Christian ministry that after " all this continual
preaching, the whiff of every new pamphlet should stagger
them (their flocks) out of their catechism and Christian walk
ing." Let them remember Galileo, whom he visited on his
Italian tour, languishing out his old age in prison for thinking
on astronomy otherwise than ; the Franciscan and Dominican
licensers thought. Little had he recked, as he listened in
Italy to the praises of free England, that he should yet hear
the same complaints at home uttered against the tyrannic
ordinance of a free Parliament. If this Parliamentary
inquisition is not curbed, it " will soon put out of contro-
versie that bishops and presbyters are the same to us both
name and thing . . . and the pastor of a small, unlearned
parish on the sudden shall be exalted archbishop over a
large diocese of books." Milton did not love prelates; he
had quickly lbst his love of presbyters, who, in their day of
triumph, had learned only too well to ape the bishops in
their monopoly of divine wisdom. He denounces their pre
tensions, and he warns against their policy of narrow com
pulsion. Particularly dangerous is the stagnation of mind
and knowledge such a policy begets. " Truth is compared in
Scripture to a streaming fountain ; if her waters flow not
in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool
of conformity and tradition." There are Protestants who
live and die as much the slaves of authority as any Papist of
Loretto. Milton is a believer in progressive inquiry, because he
realises that the full truth is not the possession of any age.
The Reformation is for him but a step in the right direction,

Advocates Progressive Inquiry. 485
and he is still far short of the truth who thinks that the
verge of reform has been reached. " The light whiclj we
have gained," he nobly says, " was given us not to be ever
staring on, but by it to discover onward things more remote
from our knowledge." To have dethroned the pope and the
bishops merely to enthrone the Presbyterian minister, is not
the end of reform. " We have look't so long upon the blaze
that Zwinglius and Calvin hath beaconed up for us, that we
are stark blind." He refuses to be thus blind, nor will he
subscribe to a merely mechanic unity that leaves truth incom
plete and restricts intellectual activity. " To be still search
ing what we know not, by what we know, still closing up
truth to truth as we find it (for all her body is homogeneal
and proportionall), this is the golden rule in theology as in
arithmetick, and makes up the best harmony in a Church ;
not the forc't and outward union of cold and neutral, and
inwardly divided, minds."
Finally, he bursts into an impassioned appeal to Parlia
ment in favour of a free republic of thought, comprehended in
a Church which shall know how to forbear with diversities of
opinion, and stop no honest man's mouth. It is the eloquence
of conviction in a large mind that cries in the ear of his
audience, "A little forbearance of one another and some
grain of charity might win all these diligencies to joyn and
unite in one general and brotherly search after Truth, could
we but forgoe this prelaticall tradition of crushing free con
sciences and Christian liberties into canons and precepts of
men." There are few pages in English literature which rise
so loftily into the atmosphere of noble human endeavour as
does this apostrophe of an imaginary Parliament in favour of
liberty and brotherhood. Milton would fain believe that the
morning of a better era has dawned for Britain and for the
world. It was a grand belief, though it was as yet, alas, but
the offspring of a too sanguine spirit. For the present he
refuses to believe that the Long Parliament will be untrue to
itself. It is to this Parliament and in this spirit of optimistic
hope that he cries with a noble earnestness, "Give me the
liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to
conscience, above all liberties." "Let truth and falsehood
grapple ; who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and

486 His Limitation of Liberty.
open encounter?" "Who knows not that Truth is strong
next to the Almighty ? She needs no policies, no stratagems,
nor licensings to make her victorious." Nevertheless, he will
not go the length of full liberty, for even Milton's mind is
swathed with some of the prejudices of his time. ' He will not
tolerate Popery and open superstition, " which, as it extirpates
all religious and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpat,
provided first, however, that all charitable and compassionat
means be used to win and regain the weak and misled." He
will also draw the line at that "which is impious or evil
absolutely, either against faith or maners," which no law can
possibly permit. For the rest, unity of spirit in the bond of
peace should suffice, remembering that in the matter of pro
hibiting, "there is not ought more likely to be prohibited
than truth itself, whose first appearance to our eyes, blear'd
and dimmed with prejudice and custom, is more unsightly
and unpleasible than many errors."
SOURCES. — Prynne's controversial writings are too
numerous to particularise, but see more especially, The
Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, and Twelve
Considerable Serious Questions Touching Church Govern
ment. Burton, The Protestation Protested (1641); Baillie's
Letters, ii. ; Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, edited by
Mitchell and Struthers (1874) ; Gillespie, Notes of Debates
of Westminster Assembly, Works, ii. (1846) ; Lightfoot,
Journal of Proceedings of Westminster Assembly in vol. xiii.
of Works, edited by Pitman (1824); Rushworth, Collections,
v. and vi. ; An Apologetical Narrative Humbly Submitted to
The Honourable Houses of Parliament (1643); Commons'
Journals, iii. and iv. ; Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vi. ;
Peterkin, Records of the Kirk ; The Works of John Robinson,
edited by Ashton, vol. ii., more especially A Justification of
Separation (1610); Cromwell's Letters and Speeches; Persecu
tion for Religion Judged and Condemned (161 5); An Humble
Supplication to the King's Majesty (1620) ; Tracts on Liberty
of Conscience, 1614-1661, edited by E. B. Underhill for the
Hanserd Knollys Society (1846); Roger Williams, The
Bloody Tenent of Persecution, edited by Underhill for the
Hanserd Knollys Society (1848); Edwards' Gangraena (1646);

Sources of Chapter XX. 487
Bailey, Life of Thomas Fuller, with a copious examination of
his works (1874); Milton's Prose Works, edited by St John,
ii. and iii. (1848); Reliquiae Baxterianae, or, Mr R. Baxter's
Narrative of His Life and Times, edited by Sylvester (1696) ;
Hanbury, Historical Memorials Relating to the Independents
(1839-44), which forms a copious collection of the contro
versial literature of the time ; Neal, History of the Puritans,
ii. (1837) ; Masson, Life of Milton, ii. (1871) and iii. (1873) — a
work of the highest value as a study of the political, ecclesias
tical, and literary history of Milton's time ; Mitchell, The
Westminster Assembly (1883) ; Hetherington, History of the
Westminster Assembly (5 th edition, 1890) ; Barclay, The
Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth
(1876) ; Shaw, History of the English Church during the
Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth (1900) ; Curteis,
Dissent in its Relation to the Church of England, Bampton
Lecture, 1891 — strongly pro- Anglican ; Sir James Donaldson,
The Westminster Confession of Faith and The Thirty-Nine
Articles (1905) — a searching review of the subject from the
standpoint of modern criticism.

INDEX TO VOL. III.

Abbot, Archbishop, 130, 164, 213
Aberdeen, 257, 280, 281, 435, 436
Accommodation Order, The, 465 ,
Adwalton Moor, Battle of, 390
Airlie, Earl of, 287
Airth, Earl of, 230
Alford, Battle of, 436
Alford, M.P., (1625) no, (1626) 137,
(1628)151
Almond, Lord, 330
Anderson, Chief Justice, 144
Annan, Rev. Mr, 249
Antrim, Lord, 280, 434, 435
"Apologetical Narration, The,'' 464
"Appello Ceesarem," 131
"Areopagitica," 481-486
Argyll, Earl of, 273, 283, 287, 292 ;
leader of Scottish Parliament,
329 - 333 ! created Marquess,
331; refuses Charles' appeal for
help, 371 ; engineers Solemn
League and Covenant, 409 ;
opponent of Montrose, 433,
. 435, 436
Arians, The, 472
Armagh, 349
Arminianism, 130-132, 166, 167, 168,
170, 172, 241
Arundel, Lord, 124, 127, 152, 280
Association, The Eastern, 394, 395,
398, 419
Athole, Earl of, 287, 435
Auldearn, Battle of, 436

Bacon, Francis, Speech of, in Par
liament (1601), 15; advocates
religious compromise, 24; on
impositions, 41-42; Attorney-
General, 51-52, 56; his advice
. on calling Parliament (1614),
51, 54; political principles of,
57 ; Lord Chancellor, 58 ; bis

antagonism to Coke, 58, 59;
relations to Buckingham, 62 ;
one of the referees, 73 ; trial
of, 75-79, 312
Baden, Margrave of, 90
Bagg, 143
Bagshaw, Member of Long Parlia-
ment, 297, 298, 344
Baillie, General, 419, 436, 439
Baillie, Letters of, 249, 250, 252, 253,
268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 302, 303,
304, 328, 329, 330, 331, 404,
405, 406-408, 433, 436, 437, 440,
447, 463-466
Balcanqual, Dr, 270, 280
Balfour, Lieutenant of Tower and
Parliamentary general, 351,
389, 420
Balfour, Sir James, 233, 240-244
Balmerino, Lord, 224, 240-244, 254,
258, 260, 267, 290
Bancroft, Archbishop of Canter
bury, 24, 209-210
Bankes, Attorney-General, 183
Baptists, The, 460, 464, 472-474
Barnes, views on non-resistance, 2
" Basilikon Doron," 22
Basing House, Assault of, 398, 432
Basingstoke, 421
Bastwick, Dr, 190-192, 300, 304
Bates, John, 36
Baxter, Richard, Puritan divine,
471, 472
Bedford, Earl of, 294
Bell, John, minister of Glasgow,
268
Bellievre, French Ambassador, 447
Benevolences, James I. resorts to,
55
Bere, Under-Secretary, Correspon
dence of, quoted, 330, 353
Berkeley, Sir R., 180
Berwick, Treaty of, 283, 284

490

Index.

" Bloody Tenent of Persecution,
The," 475-477
Bodin, 151
Book of Common Order, The, 217,
246
Bracton, 16, 52
Brent, Sir Nathaniel, 189
Brentford, 382
Brereton, Sir W., 388
Bridgman, Member of Long Par
liament, 344
Bridlington, 387
Bristol, Lord, 124, 128, 152, 386-
3«7
Bristol, Town of, 432
Brooke, Lord, 113
Brooke, Lord, 294, 388
Brownists, The, 459-461
Brunelles, M. de, 384
Buckingham, Duke of, Rise of, 62 ;
threatened impeachment of,
73, 74; champions war with
Spain, 91, 92; supports im
peachment of Middlesex, 96,
97; his foreign policy, 107;
distrust of, by Commons (1625),
112; impeachment of (1626),
1 16-128; expedition of, to La
Rochelle, 138, 139; arraigned
by Eliot, 1 53-1 54; assassination
of, 162; character of, 162
Burgh, Hubert de, 120
Burghley, Lord, 224, 267
Burlamachi, M., 384
Burton, Puritan divine, 190-192,
300, 304, 462
Busher, Leonard, 473
Byron, Lieutenant of Tower and
Royalist general, 352, 390

Csesar, Sir Julius, Chancellor of Ex
chequer (1614), 52
Calderwood, David, 218-219, 223,
226, 227
Calvert, Secretary of State, 70, 84,
85,87
Calvinism, 132, 136
Cambridge, 394
Canons, Scottish Church, 245, 246,
255, 266, 270, 277
Cappel, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 296
Carleton, Sir Dudley, 126, 127
Carmichael, John, 223
Carnarvon, Earl of, 394

Carr, Viscount Rochester, Earl of
Somerset, 50, 62
Cartwnght, English Presbyterian
divine, 458
Casillis, Earl of, 254, 267
Catesby, Catholic plotter, 26
Cavaliers, the, Ideas of, 377-S81
Cecil, Secretary, Speech of, in Pai-
liament (1601), 15-16
Cecil, Sir Edward (Lord Wimble
don), expedition against Spain,
H5,i37
Chalgrove Field, 388
Chamberlain, Correspondence of,
quoted (1614), 53, 54, 68, 97
Chambers, Richard, 180
Chancery, Court of, quarrel with
Commons, 30
Charles I., Personality of, 105-106;
early attitude towards Catho
lics, 106 - 107, m; foreign
policy of, 107, ni, 113, 115,
116; and his first Parliament,
107-114; and his second Par
liament, 1 16-128; champions
Buckingham, 119, 125, 127; dis
claims parliamentary control,
121 ; financial embarrassments
of, 137-140; and his third Par
liament (1628), 140-158, (1629)
165-175; asserts his preroga
tive, 149; letter to third Par
liament, 150-151 ; accepts Peti
tion of Right, 155 ; his religious
partisanship, 164-165 ; protects
customs officers against Parlia
ment, 169-170; attitude towards
Roman Catholicism, 192-193;
ecclesiastical policy of, towards
Scotland, 229-231 ; visit of, to
Scotland (1633), 236-240 ; pro
secutes Lord Balmerino, 242-
244; introduces Service Book
into Scottish Church, 245-250;
persists in requiring obedience
to, 249-257; negotiations of,
relative to National Covenant,
262-265 ; wages war against the
Scots, 279-283, 286-289; criti
cism of policy of, towards Scot
land, 289-294; opens Long
Parliament, 295-296 ; effects of
his arbitrary government, 296-
301 ; and the Triennial Bill,
306-307 ; distrust of, by Long
Parliament, 320-321, 336-341,

Index.

491

348; sacrifices Strafford, 322;
resents Parliamentary control,
326-327 ; strives to divide Com
mons, 328; second visit to
Scotland, 329-333; and the
Grand Remonstrance, 344, 351;
reception of, on return from
Scotland, 347-348; vainly at
tempts to reassure Commons,
349; relations of, with Irish
rebels, 349 - 350 ; his double
personality, 352; cultivates the
Parliamentary minority, 354;
demands the surrender of the
five members, 355-358; seeks
them in city, 358-359; retires
to Hampton Court, 360; refuses
to accept Militia Ordinance,
365-369; his errors in dealing
with Parliament, 372-373; ne
gotiates with Parliament ( 1 642-
1643), 382-387; appeals to Scots
for aid, 400-401 ; rebukes Scot
tish interference, 402-404 ; and
the Parliamentary Commis
sioners, 424-425 ; rebukes Par
liamentary intolerance, 428 ;
sanguine hopes of, before
Naseby, 429; defeat of, at
Naseby, 430 ; surrender of, 431,
444 ; negotiates with Scots, 442-
444 ; evasive tactics of, 446-449,
451-452; discussion with Hen
derson, 448; surrender of, by
the Scots to the English Par
liament, 452-454
Charles, Prince of Wales, 65, 91, 93,
95, 96, 97
Cheriton, Battle of, 418
Chillingworth, Anglican divine, 479
Christian, King of Denmark, 82,
107, 109, 137, 176-177
Christian of Anhalt, 90
Civil War, The, its character, 376-
38i
Clarendon, Earl of, opinion of
Laud, 188; quoted, 282, 337,
347,410,442
Clerical Disabilities Bill, 364, 458
Clotworthy, Sir John, M.P. (Mai
den), 301
Coke, Sir Edward, Chief Justice,
Opinion of, on impositions, 36-
37 ; declares proclamations
without parliamentary consent
illegal, 46 ; vindicates law

against prerogative, 55 - 56;
champions independence of
bench, 56, 57; his char
acter and principles, 57-58 ;
quarrel with Bacon, 59 ; re
sists royal interference, 59-60 ;
suspension and dismissal, 61 ;
member of James' third Par
liament, 68, 71, 84; imprisoned
by James I., 89 ; activity of, in
Charles' first Parliament, 108,
no; disabled from Charles'
second Parliament, 116; ap
peals to Magna Charta, 141,
142; argues against arbitrary
imprisonment, 144-145 ; sup
ports Petition of Right, 149-
151; arraigns Buckingham, 155
Coke, Sir John, 109, no, 143, 144,
169
Coldstream, 288
Collington, 317
Committee of Both Kingdoms, 409,
420-422
Commons, Apology of, 3 1 - 32 ;
grievances of (James I.), 31,
33, 34-36, 38-39, 45, 52, 7i;
(Charles I.), 108, 140-146; con
demn Cowell's " Interpreter,"
39-40 ; question the royal pre
rogative, 40-41, 48, 146, H7;
debate impositions, 41-44, 52!
arraign Bishop Neile, 53; de
mand freedom of speech, 41,
70; attack monopolies, 71-75;
petition of, on foreign affairs
(1621), 85; Protestation of
Rights (1621), 87-88; services
of, to political liberty, in reign
of James I., 100-102; limita
tions of these services, 102-104 ;
their opposition to Charles I. in
first Parliament, 107-114; im
peach Buckingham, 1 1 6 - 1 28 ;
Puritan sympathies of, 129-132 ;
invoke law and precedent, 141 ;
and the question of sovereignty,
151 ; remonstrance of, 153-155 ;
157-158; demand dismissal of
Buckingham, 157-158; opposi
tion of, in Short Parliament, 286 ;
denounce Charles' misgovern
ment, 296-299; accuse Strafford,
301-302; demand ecclesiastical
reform, 308, 312; discussion of,
on ecclesiastical question, 327-

492

Index.

328 ; 333-336 ; their distrust of
Charles, 336-341; two parties in,
333-341 ; and the Grand Re
monstrance, 341-347 ; insist on
having a guard, 348 ; mob inter
vention on behalf of, 352-353 ;
retire to the Guildhall, 358;
return of, 360 ; insist on repara
tion, 362, 363
Commons, House of: its position
under Elizabeth, n-17
Confession of 1567, 266
Conn, papal agent, 192
Contract, The Great, 39, 44, 46
— The Social, 52, 141
Conway, General, 287-289, 296
Conway, Lord, no, 122
Conyers, General, 288, 296
Cork, Earl of, 313
Coryton, M.P. (1629), 171
Cosins, High Church divine, 168
Cotton, antiquary, 114
Covenant of 1581, 266
— The National, 258-262, 263, 264,
266, 274, 275, 276, 290
Covenanters, The, 262-266, 267,
274-276, 279-294
Coventry, Sir Th., Attorney-General
and Lord Keeper, 116, 121, 179
Cowell, Dr, author of " The Inter
preter," 39-40
Cranfield, Earl of Middlesex, Lord
Treasurer, 71, 72, 85 ; impeach
ment of, 95-97, 312
Crawford, General, 419, 422, 470
Crewe, M.P. (1621X84, 89; Speaker
(1625), 108; Chief Justice, 138,
173
Cromwell, Oliver, moves Triennial
Bill, 306 ; supports Root and
Branch Bill, 309, 311 ; supports
majority of Long Parliament,
336 ; opinion of, on passing of
Grand Remonstrance, 347 ;
his opinion of the main motive
of civil war, 277 > at Edgehill,
382 ; operations of 1643, 388,
390 ; complains of want of sup
plies, 393 ; his confidence in
God, 395 ; services of, as or
ganiser, 394, 398 ; at Marston
Moor, 419 - 420; quarrel of,
with Manchester, 422 - 423 ;
nominated Lieutenant-General,
429 ; at Naseby, 430 ; presents
Accommodation Order, 465,

470; advocates toleration, 470-
477
Cropredy Bridge, 420
Crossraguel, Abbot of, 218
Culpepper, Member of Long Par
liament, 297, 301, 309, 344, 354
Cumbernauld, Bond of, 329
Dalhousie, Earl of, 254
Dalkeith, 255, 263
Darlington, 289
Dartmouth, 432
Deering, Sir Edward, 342-343, 344
Denbigh, Lord, 152, 425
Denmark, 364, 371
Dessau, Battle of, 137
D'Ewes, Journal of, 13, 179, 180,
192; Member of Long Parlia
ment, 311, 346, 357
Dickson, minister of Irvine, 254,
437
Digby, Lord, 83, 297, 300, 301,
3°5, 3°9, 3io, 319, 328, 363,
364, 367, 431, 443
Digges, M.P., (1614) appeal to law,
52,(1621)68, 84, 89, (1626) 116,
123; arrest of, 125, 126; Mem
ber of Charles' third Parlia
ment, 145
Dillon, Lord, 313, 338
"Discipline, The Second Book of,"
198-203, 277
Dissolution Bill, 323, 336, 339, 354
Dodderidge, 145-146
Donnington Castle, 421
Dorset, Earl of, 37, 348, 386
Douglas, Earl of, 281
Douglas of Cavers, 267
Downland, speech against mono
polies (1601), 16
Drummond of Hawthornden,
quoted, 244
Dumbarton, 280, 281, 289
Dumfries, 434
Dunbar, Earl of, Treasurer of Scot
land, 206, 213
Dunfermline, Earl of, 283, 284, 329
Duns Law, 282, 288, 358
Durham, 288, 289, 418
Edgcott, 381
Edgehill, Battle of, 381-382, 385,
395
Edinburgh, visit of Charles I., 236,
281, 289

Index.

493

Edmondes, M.P. (1628), 168, 170
Edward III., King of England, 307
Edwards, Thomas, 462
Eglinton, Earl of, 224, 254, 267
Elcho, Lord, 435
Eliot, leader of the opposition to
Charles I., 107, 11 1, 114; leads
intheimpeachment of Bucking
ham, n 6- 1 28; arrest of (1626),
125,126; dismissed from office
of justice, 137; imprisoned, 138;
speech against arbitrSrygovern-
ment, 142-143; proposes re
monstrance, 153 - 154; de
nounces HighChurch doctrines,
167; speech of, in support of
Declaration (1629), 170-172;
imprisonment and death of, 172-
174; character of, 175-176
Elizabeth, Queen, Autocratic rule
of, 1 ; Catholic attacks against,
2 ; attitude of, towards Puri
tans, 5 ; personality of, 9 ; atti
tude of, towards Parliament
9-17
Ely, 471
England, New, 460, 474-475, 477
Episcopacy, Establishment of, in
Scotland, 205-217; abolition of,
274-277; attack on, by Com
mons, 308-312
Erastians, The, 463, 466-467
Erie, Member of Long Parliament,
301
Erskine, Lord, 274
Essex, Countess of, 50
Essex, Earl of, 294, 355, 356, 358,
372, 379, 381, 382, 388, 389, 392,
393, 394, 418, 42°
Estates, Scottish, Convention of,
231

Fairfax, Lord, 382, 388, 392, 393,
394, 395, 418-420, 439
Fairfax, Sir Thomas, 390, 392, 418,
419, 420, 428, 430, 431
Falkland, Lord, 301, 303, 304, 305,
3°9, 333-336, 344, 347, 354
Family of Love, The, 472
Fawkes, Guy, 26
Ferdinand II., Emperor and King
of Bohemia, 65, 83
Fiennes, Nath., Member of Long
Parliament, 305, 310
Fife, 371

Financial question, Importance of,
34-36, 49, 55, 392-394J expedi
ents of Long Parliament, 396,
397
Finch, Member of James' first
Parliament, 43
Finch, Speaker of Commons (1629),
170-172; Chief Justice, 183;
Lord Keeper, 295, 303
Firth, Mr, quoted, 377
Fisher, Controversy of Laud with,
167
Fleming, Baron, judgment on im
positions, 36; on proclama
tions, 46
Floyd, arraigned by the Commons
(1621), 80-81
Forbes, minister of Alford, Trial of,
207
Forbes, Patrick, of Carse, Bishop of
Aberdeen, 220, 222
Forth, Lord, 418
France, 292, 371
Frederick, Elector Palatine, 65, 66,
82, 83, 93, 176
Freedom of speech, 17.2
Fuller, Member of James' first
Parliament, 41 ; of second Par
liament, 51, 52
Fuller, Thomas, 478, 479

Gainsborough, 390, 395, 396
Galloway, Bishop of, 254
Galloway, Patrick, minister of Edin
burgh, 220
Gardiner, S. R., quoted, 58, 61
Gell, Sir John, 379, 388
General Assembly, the, R61e of, in
Scottish national life, 198 ;
meeting at Dundee (1597), 205 ;
at Montrose (1600), 205 ; at
Aberdeen (1605), 206, 209 ; at
Linlithgow (1606 and 1608),
211-213; at Glasgow (1610),
213-214; at St Andrews, 219-
220 ; at Perth, 220-224 ; at
Glasgow (1638), 266-275 5 at St
Andrews (1642), 398, 399, 401
Gerard, Catholic plotter, 26
Gillespie, Scottish divine, 463
Gladstanes, Archbishop of St An
drews, 206, 217
Glamorgan, Lord, 431
Glanville, M.P. (1625), 113 ; (1626),
122

494

Index.

Gloucester, 388, 391, 395
Glyn, Member of Long Parliament,
319, 344, 354, 4°9
Gondomar, Spanish Ambassador, 66
Goodman, Political views of, 3
Goodwin, John, 465
Goodwin, Thomas, 462
Gordon, of Rothiemay, quoted, 248,
260
Gordons, The, 282, 435
Goring, General, 419, 429, 431, 432
Grandison, Lord, 113
Grantham, Fight of, 395
Grantham, Regiment of, 382
Greyfriars' Church, Edinburgh,
Signing of Covenant in, 260-261
Grievances, Commission of (Scot
land), 233
Grimston, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 297, 298, 309
Grindal, Archbishop, 11
Guise, Duke of, 253
Gunpowder Plot, 26, 33
Gustavus Adolphus, King of Swe
den, 176
Guthry, Bishop of Dunkeld, 250, 265
Guthry, Bishop of Moray, 262

Habeas Corpus, Question of, 138,
144 1
Hackwell, speech against mono
polies (1601), 16; against im
positions (1610), 42 ; Member
of James' second Parliament,
51, 52 ; third Parliament, 68
Hague, Treaty of, 116
Haig, W., 240
Hales, John, 192, 479
Hales, Sir Edward, 296
Hall, Bishop, 480
Hamilton, General, 176
Hamilton, Marquess of, 224, 253, 257,
262, 263-274, 276, 280-283, 284,
317, 330; (Duke of), 331, 405,
408, 450, 451
Hamilton, Sir Thomas, Earl of
Melrose, 224
Hampden, Member of Charles'
second Parliament, 116; im
prisoned, 138 ; refuses to pay
ship-money, 182 ; trial of, 182-
183 ; leader of Long Parlia
ment, 296 ; member of Com
mittee against Strafford, 301 ;
j udgment against, quashed, 304;

supports Bill of Attainder
against Strafford, 320; leader
of majority of Commons, 333 ;
supports Grand Remonstrance,
344, 346 ; surrender of, de
manded by Charles, 356-357 ;
regiment of, 382 ; death of,
388 ; letter of, 393
Hampton Court conference, 23-
24 ; second conference of,
208-209
Hay, Lord Clerk Register, 240,
254
Hazelrig, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 355
Heath, Sir Robert, Attorney-Gen
eral, in, 173; Chief Justice,
177
Hedley, M.P., Speech of, against
impositions (1610), 42
Henderson, Alex., 223, 250, 254,
258, 260, 270-274, 283, 398, 402,
403, 408, 409, 426, 433, 448,
463
Henrietta Maria, Marriage of, 95,
98, 106 ; influence of, 429,
447
Henry III., King of England, 120
Henry IV. of France, 28
Henry VIIL as absolute ruler,
i,3
Herbert, M.P. (1626), 122 ; Attor
ney-General, 355, 362
Hereford, Town of, 388, 431, 432,
439, 44o
Hertford, Earl of, 394, 426
Hertford, Sheriff of, 287
Hewat, Peter, minister of Edin
burgh, 218
Heyman, M.P. (1629), 172
Hickson, Miss, quoted, 349
Hide, M.P., Bill of 1601, 15
High Church party, Political and
theological views of, 131-135,
184-193, 299, 300
— Commission, 187, 189-190, 296,
308, 326, 459
— Commission (Scotland), 213,
218, 226, 227, 245, 263, 265,
266, 270, 275, 277
" Histriomastix," 186
Hitcham, Sir Robert, Speech of, on
impositions (1610), 42
Hobart, Attorney - General under
James, Speech of, on imposi
tions (1610), 42-43

Index.

495

Hobart, Sir Miles, 171
Holbourne, counsel for Hampden,
183, Member of Long. Parlia
ment, 305
Hooker, Richard, Political views
of, 6-8, 52
Holland, Earl of, 280, 282, 297, 366
Holland, Puritan refugees in, 460,
462, 464, 474; services of, to
political liberty, 293 ; intrigues
of queen in, 364, 371, 387
Hollis, M.P. (1629), 170-172, 174;
(of Long Parliament), 296, 303,
3",344,355,454
Home, Earl of, 254, 256, 267
Hope, Sir Thomas, Lord Advocate,
235, 242, 254, ^77
Hopton, Cavalier general, 388, 389,
392,432 '
Hoskyns, M.P. (1614), 54
Hotham, Sir John, 382, 394
Hotham, The younger, 363, 368, 394
Howard, Lord Henry and Lord
Thomas, 25
Huguenots, Revolt of, no, 116, 123
Hull, 368, 372
Huntingdon, 382, 431
Huntly, Marquess of, 257, 280, 281
Hurry, General, 436
Hutchinson, Colonel, 414
Hutchinson, Mrs, quoted, 379, 442
Hutchison, John, 192
Hyde, Laurence, M.P., Speech of
on impositions (1610), 43
Hyde (Lord Clarendon), 309, 328,
334-337, 344
Hyde, Sir Nicholas, Chief Justice,
138, 146, 173

Impositions, Question of, 36-47
Impressment Bill, 350, 351, 364
Imprisonment, Arbitrary, 144-146
Incident, The, 330, 338
Independents, The, 438, 439, 442,
443, 447, 461-468
"Information from the Scottish
Nation, The," 288
"Interpreter, The" (Cowell's), 39-40
Intolerance, of General Assembly,
399, 401 ; prevalence of spirit
of, 469, 470
Ireland, 296, 297, 313, 314, 3*5, 3*7
Irish Cessation, The, 417, 425
— Rebellion, The, 338-34°, 349,
350, 405

Ironsides, The, 430
Inverlochie, Battle of, 435-436

James I., Personality of, 21-22;
attitude of, towards Puritans,
22-25 ! towards Catholics, 25-
29, 90-91, 95 ; impecuniosity
°f> 34"38 ; and his first Parlia
ment, 30-47 ; speeches of, 30,
32-33, 51, 60, 68-69, 91; and
his second Parliament, 51, 54;
emphasises prerogative above
law, 56, 60; foreign policy
of, 63-67, 69, 81-84, 9o-94, 97-
98 ; and his third Parliament,
68-89; character of, 98-100;
significance of his reign, 100-
104; views of, on the right
of rebellion, 130; opinion of
Laud, 135-136; ecclesiastical
policy towards Scotland, 204-
227; Scottish Parliament de
clares ecclesiastical supre
macy of, 214-216 ; reforms wor
ship of Scottish Church, 217-
226; visit of, to Scotland, 217-
219; policy of, towards Scot
land, 289, 291
Jermyn, Lord, 431
Johnstone of Warriston, 254, 256,
257, 258, 260, 270, 274, 283,
398, 399, 407, 408
Justiciary Court, 208
"Justification of Separation, A"
(Robinson), 461
Juxon, Bishop, 317

Kelso, 282
Kerr, Dean, 349
Kilsyth, Battle of, 436
Kimbolton, Lord, 355, 419
Kineton, 381
King, General, 419
Kingston (Surrey), 363
Kinneil, 330
Kirkton, Member of Charles' third
Parliament, 166
Knipperdoling, 472
Knollys, Hanserd, 460
Knox, John, Political views of, 3

Lambeth Articles, 23
Lanark, Earl of, 331, 408

496

Index.

Langdale, Royalist general, 430
Langport, 432
Languet, Hubert, 7
Lansdowne, Battle of, 388
Laud, Archbishop, 133-136, 140, 147,
157, 164, 165, 167, 184-193, 230,
237, 240, 243, 245-247, 255, 263,
288, 289, 290, 298-301, 303,
458, 461, 468-470
"Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity"
(Hooker), 6-8
League, Solemn, and Covenant,
406-414
Leicester, 430
Leighton, Alexander, Puritan pam
phleteer, 184-185,300,304,458,
480
Leith, 281, 283
Lennox, Duke of, 262, 425
Lenthal, Speaker of Long Parlia
ment, 356, 470
Leslie, Alexander, Earl of Leven,
280, 282, 287, 288, 331, 358, 409,
417-420, 431, 439
Leslie, David, 419, 420, 436, 439
Liberty Statutes, The, 148, 149
Lichfield, 388
Lilburne, John, 192, 304
Lincoln, 420
Lindesay, Earl of, 254, 256, 267
Lindsay, Dr David, Bishop of Edin
burgh, 247
Lindsey, Lord, 163, 181,382,402,403
Linlithgow, Earl of, 235
Littleton, member of Charles' Third
Parliament, 144, 145, 169 ; Re
corder of London, 177 ; Solici
tor-General, 182; Lord Keeper,
364
Lords, House of, co-operation with
Commons, 80; attitude towards
Petition of Right, 146, 152;
agree to Bill of Attainder
against Strafford, 321 ; reject
Militia and Impressment Bills,
351 ; friction of, with Commons,
353,354; impeach the bishops,
354
Lorn, Lord, 254, 263, 265
Lorraine, Duke of, 429, 431
Lostwithiel, Battle of, 420
Lothian, Earl of, 254, 267
Lothians, The, 37 1
Loudon, Lord, 235, 239, 240, 254,
258, 260, 267, 269, 283, 284,
329, 331, 402, 403, 423, 450

Louis XIII., King of France, 95,
116, 284-285, 286
Louis XIV., King of France, 320,
438
Lubeck, Peace of, 177
Ludlow, Parliamentary general,4l4
Lumsdaine, Colonel, 420
Lunsford, Lieutenant of Tower, 351,
352, 353, 363
Lutter, Battle of, 137
Liitzen, Battle of, 176
Lynne, 390
Lyon Herald, 256, 257

MacDonald, Alastair, 435
Magna Charta, 141, 142, 148, 180,
298
Mainwaring, High Church divine,
134, 157, 164, 168
Maitland, Lord (Earl of Lauder
dale), 408, 424
Manchester, Earl of, 390, 392, 394,
419, 420, 422-424, 439
Manchester, Town of, 380
Mandeville (Earl of Manchester),
294
Mandeville, Lord Treasurer, 73
Mansell, Sir Robert, opponent of
Buckingham, 112
Mansfeld, Count, 83, 90, 98, 107,
109, 137
Markham, Catholic plotter, 26
Maria, Infanta, of Spain, 91
Mariana, 4
Marston Moor, Battle of, 419-420,
435, 439
Martin, Sir Henry, 151
Martyn, M.P., in James' first Par
liament, Speech of, on Imposi
tions, 42
Mary, Queen of England, 2, 3
Mary, Queen of Scotland, 2, 198
Massachusetts, 474
Maurice, Prince, 388, 394
Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, 83
Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, 262
Maxwell, James, Keeper of Black
Rod, 302, 303
May, M.P. (1628), 168, 170
May, Thomas, Secretary of Long
Parliament, quoted, 295, 312,
380, 389
Maynard, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 314, 315, 316, 319, 344,
4°9, 423

Index.

497

Mazarin, French statesman, 443
Melrose, Earl of, 224, 227
Melville, Andrew, 22, 198, 204, 205,
206, 208-2 1 1
Melville, James, 208
Melville, Lord, 239
Menteith, Earl of, 224
Michell, Sir Francis, 72, 74, 75
Middleton, M.P. (1614), 51
Militia Bill, 337, 339, 350, 351
— Ordinance, 364, 365, 371
Milton, John, 192 ; his " Defence of
Liberty of Printing," 415, 481-
486 ; controversial writings of,
479-481
Mitchell, Dr, minister of Edin
burgh, 262
Mompesson, Sir Giles, 63, 72, 74,
75
" Monarchy, The Trew Lawe of
Free " (James I.), 60
Monopolies, Attack on, in 1601, 15-
17, (1621) 71-75
Monro, General, 287, 405
Montague, Chief Justice of King's
Bench, 41
Montague, High Church divine,
130-133, 164, 165, 168
Montaigne, Archbishop of York,
164
Montereul, French envoy, negotia
tions of, 443-444, 447, 454
Montrose, Earl of,' Chancellor of
Scotland, 206, 212
Montrose, Marquess of, 254, 257,
267, 281, 282, 288, 291, 292,
329, 331, 332, 405, 429, 43i,
432-438, 439, 443
Moore, Francis, speech against
monopolies, 16
Moore, Sir George, M.P. (1621), 81
Morgan, General, 152
Morton, Earl of, 262, 330
Mounteagle, Lord, 26
Mountnorris, Lord, 313
Miinzer, Thomas, 472
Murray, Sir Andrew, 260
Murray, Sir Robert, 442, 443

Nantes, Edict of, 28
Nantwich, Battle of, 390
Napier, Lord, 245
Naseby, Battle of, 430, 440
Neile, Bishop of Lincpln and Win
chester, 53, 59, 168, 171, 174
VOL. III.

Nethersole, M.P., Charles' third
Parliament, 144
Nevil, Christopher, 54
Nevill, Sir Henry, 51, 54
Newark, 418, 431
Newburn, Fight of, 288
Newbury, First Battle of, 389, 390,
395 ; second battle of, 421
Newcastle, Earl of, 281, 382, 385,
388, 390, 418-420, 434
Newcastle, Town of, 288, 289, 418,
420, 439
" New Gag for an Old Goose," con
troversial work by Montague,
130
New Model, The, 424, 428, 429, 430,
471, 472
Nicholas, Secretary of State, 287,
33i, 334-335, 338, 344
Nithsdale, Earl of, 234
'North, Council of, 160, 308, 313
Northampton, 381
Northumberland, County of, 289 ;
protest of the gentry of, 417, 418
Northumberland, Earl of, 181, 287,
317, 367
Nottingham, Raising of King's
standard at, 372, 380 ; Charles
leaves, 381
Noy, M.P. (1628), 168; Attorney-
General, 177, 178
Nye, Philip, Puritan divine, 409, 462
O'Neil, Sir Phelim, Irish Catholic
leader, 338, 349
Ordinance, The Self-Denying, 424,
428
Ormonde, Duke of, 339, 349, 390,
423, 429
Osborne, Sir Edward, 289
Overall, Bishop, Political views of,
129, 130
Owen, M.P. (1614), 52, 54
Oxford, 109, 380, 381, 382, 384, 391,
397, 402, 408, 417, 418, 426, 43o,
43i, 432, 443, 464
Pacification, Treaty of, 329, 402, 408
Palmer, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 346
Panzani, papal agent, 192
Parliament under Henry VIIL, 1 ;
position of, under Elizabeth,
8-17 ; James I. and his first,
30-47 ; the " Addle " Parlia-
2 I

498

Index.

ment, 51-54; third Parliament
of James I., 68-89 , fourth
Parliament of James I., 91-97;
first Parliament of Charles I.,
107- 1 13 ; second Parliament
of Charles I., 116-128; third
Parliament of Charles I., (first
session) 140-158, (second ses
sion) 165-172 ; the Short, 286 ;
the Long, (first session 01)295-
329, (second session of) 336-
360; Triennial Parliaments,3o6 ;
supremacy 0^362-371 ; negotia
tions of, with Charles I. (1642-
1643), 382-387; financial expedi
ents of Long, 396-397 ; military
reforms of, 397-398, 423-424 ;
negotiations with the Scottish
General Assemblyand Scottish
Estates, 398-409 ; Royalist Par
liament of Oxford, 417, 429 ;
negotiations of, with Charles
(1644-1645), 424-428 ; friction
of, with Scots, 439-442, 445 ;
negotiates with Charles over
Newcastle Propositions, 446-
449 ; with the Scots over pay
ment of arrears and fate of
king, 449-452 ; supremacy of,
over the Church, 466-467
Parsons (Doleman), 2
Peacham, Vicar of Hinton St
George, Case of, 56, 57
Peard, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 346
Pembroke, Earl of, 367
Pennington, Admiral, 280, 348, 353,
358, 360, 363, 367
Pennington, Alderman, 308
Percy, Catholic plotter, 26
Perrot, M.P. (1621), 84
Persecuting spirit of Puritans and
Presbyterians, 412-414
" Persecution for Religion Judged
and Condemned," 474
Perth, Earl of, 332
Perth, Five Articles of, 217-227,
229-231, 240, 258, 263, 264, 266,
270, 277
Peters, Hugh, 460, 462
Petition of Right, The, 144-146, 150-
157, 163, 166, 180, 298
Phelips, Sir Edward, Speaker,
(1604), 30: M.P. (i62i),68,84,
89; (1625), 107, 112, 113, 114,
131 ; disabled by Charles I.,

1 1 6, 137 ; Member of Charles
third Parliament, 142, 143, 146,
155
Philip 1 1., King of Spain, 10, 29
Philip III., King of Spain, 63, 70
Philip IV., King of Spain, 82, 83,
84,93
Philiphaugh, Battle of, 437, 438
Piers, Bishop of Bath and Wells,
3°4
Pilgrim Fathers, The, 187, 460
Pitscottie, Colonel, 420
"Plea for Liberty of Conscience, A,"
473
Plymouth, 388, 391, 420
Pole, Cardinal, 2
Ponet, Bishop, 2, 3; his "Treatise
of Politique Power," 3-5
Portland, Earl of, 178
Powick Bridge, Skirmish of, 381
Poyntz, Parliamentary general, 431
Prerogative, the Royal, Cowell's
interpretation of, 39 ; James'
sensitiveness as to, 40, 48 ;
his assertion of, 56, 59-60 ;
Lords' clause safeguarding,
146, 147
Presbyterianism, Scottish, System
of, 198-203 '; political tendency
of, 203-204 ; establishment of
(1592), 204, 207 ; disestablish
ment of, 214; re-establishment
of, 277 ; establishment of, in
England, 439, 466 ; intolerant
tendency of, 457-459
Privy Council, Committee of Eng
lish, for Scottish Affairs, 266,
317
Propositions of Newcastle, 446, 451
— The Fourteen (Oxford), 384, 385
" Protestation Protested, The," 462
Protestation against Service Book,
250-251
Providence, colony of, Toleration
in, 475
Prynne, Puritan writer, 184-186,
190-192,300, 304, 458, 480
Public Safety, Committee of, 392,
409
Puritans, The early, 5-6, 19 ; con
ference with James I., 23 ; the
Commons champion tolera
tion for, 45, 46 ; increase of,
90 ; intolerance of, 106-107 ;
views of, 129, 136, 165-168 ;
persecution of, 184-193 ; atti-

Index.

499

tude of, towards Scotland, 293,
294 ; extreme views of, 334-
335 ; spirit of, in Civil War, 376-
380 ; in New England, 474-477
Pym, Member of James' third Par
liament, 68, 84 ; Charles' first
Parliament, 107 ; Charles'
second Parliament, 1 16-122,
160 ; denounces High Church
doctrines, 166 - 167 ; leads
Opposition in Short Parlia
ment, 286 ; in Long Parliament,
296-297 ; accuses Strafford,
301, 302 ; protects Cromwell,
311; manager of impeachment
of Strafford, 312 ; his charges
against Strafford, 314, 315 ;
supports Bill of Attainder
against Strafford, 320 ; presents
ten propositions, 326; leader
of majority of Commons, 333-
336 ; his ultra-Protestant
zeal, 334, 335 ; proposes Grand
Remonstrance, 341 ; speech in
favour of, 345 ; charged with
high treason, 355; surrender
of, demanded by Charles, 356-
357 ; criticism of his policy,
373-375 5 death, character, and
work of, 409-412

Raleigh, Sir Thomas, 26
Raleigh, Sir Walter, 65
Raphoe, Bishop of, 262
Rates, Book of, 38
Reading, 382
Recusants, Laws against, 26-29, 7°,
108
Reformation, English, Political
effects of, 1, 2
— the Scottish, Character of, 198
Remonstrance, The Grand, 337,
339,341-347, 349-351
Responsibility of Ministers to Par
liament, 114
Reynolds, Puritan divine, 23
Revocation, Act of, 231, 233-236,
240, 241, 290
Richard II., King of England, 120
Richelieu, 178
Ripon, Treaty of, 289
Robinson, John, 460-462, 474
Robinson, Henry, 460
Rolles, M.P., Charles' third Par
liament, 166, 168, 169, 170

Root and Branch Bill, 309-312, 327-
328
Roses, Wars of, 1
Rothes, Earl of, 224, 235, 240, 242,
249, 253, 254, 257, 258, 260,
262, 264, 267, 269, 270, 273, 282,
328-329
Roundheads, Origin of term, 353
Roundway Down, Battle of, 388
Rous, M.P., Charles' third Parlia
ment, 166, 167
Row, quoted, 238, 244
Rowton Heath, Battle of, 431
Roxburgh, Earl of, 248, 263, 281,
356
Rudyard, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 296, 297, 298-299, 300,
344
Rupert, Prince, 378, 381, 382, 392,
394, 4i8, 419, 420, 430, 434
Rushworth, assistant clerk of Long
Parliament, quoted, 237, 268,
347, 353, 357, 365
Rutherford, Samuel, 463

Salisbury, Lord, Secretary of State
and Lord Treasurer, 37-41, 46,
50, 51 ; foreign policy of, 63
Sandys, Sir Edward, M.P. (in 1614),
51,52,53,54; (ini62i), 68, 84;
(1625), 107; (1626), 116
Savile, Lord, 294, 386
Saye, Lord, 152, 180, 294, 305, 462
Scotland, Condition of, at end of
sixteenth century, 195-197; con
trast with England, 195-196;
Parliament of, 197-198, 214,
224-225, 231-232, 236, 238, 240,
283-284, 287, 290-291, 329-331,
405-408, 437, 441 ; services of,
to political liberty, 292-294
Seekers, The, Puritan sect, 472 ,
Selby, 418
Selden, Member of Charles' second
Parliament, 116, 122; of third
Parliament, 144, 145, 172;
Member of Long Parliament,
346, 463
Separatists, The, 459-461
Service Book, Scottish, 245-256,
263, 264, 266, 270, 277, 279
Seymour, M.P. (1625), no, 115,131;
disabled from Charles' second
Parliament, 116; dismissed
from office of justice, 137;

5oo

Index.

Member of Charles' third
Parliament, 143 ; of Long Par
liament, 296
Sherburn, Correspondence of,
quoted, 62
Shilton, Solicitor-General, 144
Ship-money, 178-184, 304, 308, 326
Shrewsbury, 419
Sibthorpe, High Church divine, 134
Simson, minister of Dalkeith, 218
" Sion's Plea against Prelacy," 184-
. l85
Skippon, General, 389, 420
Slyngesbie, Captain, Correspond
ence of, 348, 358-359
Smith, Correspondence of, quoted,
.363
Smith, Sir Thomas, 6
Smyth, John, 460, 472
Socinians, The, 472
Solemn League and Covenant, 406-
414, 417, 422, 425, 426, 450,
464
Somerset, Earl of, 50, 53, 62
Soul Sleepers, The, 472
Southampton, Earl of, 425
Southesk, Earl of, 265
"Sports, Book of, or Declaration of,"
189, 190
Spottiswood, Archbishop of Glas
gow and St Andrews, 206, 217,
219, 220, 221, 227, 230, 232, 243,
245-248, 249, 256, 262, 263 1
St Giles', Riot in, 247, 248
St John, Oliver, refuses to pay bene
volence, 55; counsel for Hamp
den, 182; M.P. Long Parlia
ment, 301, 393, 460, 463
Stade, 154
Stamford, Lord, 388
Stapleton, General, 389
Star Chamber, Court of, 168, 185,
186, 190, 296,308, 312,326
Stirling, 256, 433
Strafford, Earl of, commands army
against Scots, 288; his methods,
298; arrest of, 301-303; im
peachment of, 312-318; Bill of
Attainder against,3i9-322; exe
cution of, 322-324
Strangways, Sir John, Member of
Long Parliament, 309, 311
Stratoun, Sir Alexander, 206
Stratton, 388
Strickland, M.P. in Elizabeth's
reign, 13

Strode, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 266,301, 306, 355
Struggle between King and Parlia
ment, Stages of, 19-20
Struthers, minister of Edinburgh,
230
Suffolk, Duke of (Richard II.), 120
Suffolk, Lord Treasurer, 62
Sutherland, Earl of, 260

Tables, The Four, 254, 258, 264,
266, 272, 283
Tailors' Hall, The, Edinburgh, 261
Tate, Zouch, Member of Long Par
liament, 424
Taxation, Arbitrary, 144
Temple, Lady, 386
Tilly, Imperial general, 90, 137
Tippermuir, Battle of, 435
Toleration, Question of, in James
I.'s reign, 19-29, 90-91, 95;
Charles I., 106-107; champions
of, 456-486
Tonnage and Poundage, Act of,
(James I.) 31 ; (Charles I.) 109,
157-158, 163, 165, 166, 168-
172, 326
Torrington, 432
Totness, Earl of, 119
Traquair, Earl of, 243, 245, 252, 253,
254, 255, 256, 257, 263, 281, 284
Traskites, The, 472
Tresham, 26
Trevor, English Puritan divine, 458
Triennial Bill, 323, 339
Tullibardine, Lord, 435
Turnham Green, 382
Turriff, Trot of, 282 1
Tyndale, views on kingly power, 2

Ulster, 405
Union, James I.'s scheme of, 31, 34
Usher, Archbishop, 480
Uxbridge, Negotiation of, 425, 431,
445
Valentine, M.P. (1629), 170-172,
173
Vane, Sir Harry, 317, 406, 407, 409,
460, 462
Vere, English general in Thirty
Years' War, 83
Verney, Sir Edmund, quoted, 282,
378

Index.

501

Villiers, Christopher, 63
Villiers, George, Rise of, 62
Villiers, Sir Edward, 73
" Vindication against Tyrants "
(Languet), 7
Vorstius, Arminian divine, 136

Wakefield, 388, 395
Wallenstein, Imperial general, 137
Waller, General, 379, 388, 389, 394,
395, 4i8, 420-421, 429
Waller, Member of Long Parlia
ment, 344
Walton, Colonel, 419
Wandesforde, M.P. (1626), 122
Warwick, Earl of, 294, 367, 371
Warwick, Sir Philip, Secretary to
Charles I., 380
Watspn, Catholic plotter, 26
Webb, Mr, quoted, 379
Welch, minister of Ayr, Trial of,
207
Welde, Thomas, 462
Wemyss, Earl of, 248, 256, 267
Wentworth, Member of James' first
Parliament, 41, 47 ; of second
Parliament, 51, 53, 54; of
Charles' first Parliament, 131 ;
of Charles' second Parliament,
116
Wentworth, Peter, 15
Wentworth, Sir Thomas, Member of
James' second Parliament, 5 1 ;
Member of third Parliament, 68,
85 ; disabled from Parliament,
by Charles I., 116; dismissed
from office of justice, 137; im
prisoned, 138; speech against
arbitrary government, 142, 143;
supports Bill to enact Liberty
Statutes, 148-149; apostasy
of, 160-162, 177; Lord Deputy
of Ireland, 177, 181, 182, 188;
advice of, relative to Scottish
affairs, 265-266, 280, 285. (See
also under Strafford.)
Westminster Assembly of Divines,
400, 408, 426, 438-441, 462-470,
47i

Weston, M.P., (1614) 51, (1625)
no
Weston, Sir Richard, Chancellor of
Exchequer, no, 11 1, 119, 143,
163; Lord Treasurer and Earl
of Portland, 171, 172, 174, 178
Wharton, Nehemiah, Correspond
ence of, quoted, 379
Whitby, M.P. (1626), 122
White, Mr, Puritan divine, 409
Whitelocke, Bulstrode, 314, 319,
386, 409, 423, 424, 463
Whitelocke, Member of James'
first Parliament, 43 ; of second
Parliament, 51, 52
Whitney, Mr, quoted, 3
Williams, Dean of Westminster,
74; Lord Keeper and Bishop
of Lincoln, 79, 116, 135, 136,
152, 189; Archbishop of York,
352
Williams, Roger, 460, 474-477
Willoughby, 394
Wilmot, Cavalier general, 381
Winceby, Fight of, 395, 396
Windebank, Secretary, 303
Winter, Catholic plotter, 26
Winthrop, John, 187
Winwood, Secretary of State, 51,
52
Wiseman, Correspondence of, 360
Wishart, Dr, Montrose's chaplain,
433
Worcester, 381, 432
Wotton, M.P. (1614), 52
Wren, Bishop of Ely, 304
Wroth, Sir Robert, 16

Yelverton, M.P. in Elizabeth's
reign, 13
Yelverton, M.P. in James' first Par
liament, Attorney-General and
Justice of Common Pleas, 42,
73,75
Yester, Lord, 267
Young, Dr, 222, 225
Young, Thomas, 480
York, 288, 418, 420

Printed at The Darien Press, Edinburgh.

6235