[1629 A.D.]

appeared in the same house eleven years afterwards as "a gentleman very ordinarily apparelled, for it was a plain cloth suit, which seemed to have been made by an ill country tailor.' But this plain gentleman, with "his countenance swollen and reddish, his voice sharp and untunable," had, according to the same observer, an "eloquence full of fervour." It was Oliver Cromwell that attracted the attention of the "courtly young gentleman," as Sir Philip Warwick terms himself, in 1640; and in 1629 he was disturbing the complacency of other courtly gentlemen, by a speech thus briefly reported: "That he had heard by relation from one Dr. Beard that Dr. Alabaster had preached flat popery at Paul's Cross, and that the bishop of Winchester had commanded him, as his diocesan, he should preach nothing to the contrary. Mainwaring, so justly censured in this house for his sermons, was by the same bishop's means preferred to a rich living. If these are the steps to church preferment, what are we to expect?"

At present we need not enter into these theological complaints of the commons further than to indicate their nature by this speech. It was a declaration of opinion by one who, though new to public life in 1629, was connected with some of the great parliamentary leaders by family ties and private friendships, and was sent to parliament from Huntingdon, the town in which he dwelt, with the reputation of sagacity and energy in his local relations. The complaints thus briefly reported to be uttered by Cromwell at this time are to be found at much greater length in the speeches of more conspicuous members. Brief, but ominous, was the session. The king ordered the commons to take the bill for tonnage and poundage into immediate consideration; but the patriots demanded the precedence for grievances-the saints for religion. The last succeeded; and it was resolved that the "business of the king of this earth should give place to the business of the king of heaven." In religion, danger was apprehended from two sources, papacy and Arminianism. Of the growth of papacy an alarming instance had recently appeared. Out of ten individuals arraigned on the charge of having received orders in the church of Rome, only one had been condemned, and even his execution had been respited.P In order to defeat resolutions respecting religious matters, or against tax-collectors, who levied taxes which had not been voted, the king had recourse to a prorogation of the parliament, by which, however, those matters were delayed which he wished to have settled, and the reciprocal enmity was increased.

VIOLENCE IN THE HOUSE; THE ARREST AND DEATH OF ELIOT

When the speaker of the house of commons, on the 2nd of March, after a long interruption of the sittings declared that the king ordered a new adjournment till the 10th of March, some members answered, "That such a command could by no means be given to the house of commons, as an adjournment depended upon itself, but as soon as some necessary things were finished it would, however, comply." Hereupon Sir John Eliot read a motion for a representation to the king upon tonnage and poundage, which the speaker, John Finch, in consequence of the king's order, just received, would not suffer to be put to the vote, but was going to leave the chair.

The moment, however, that he rose in order to withdraw, Holles [the son of the earl of Clare] and Valentine came forward, and the first said, "By God, you shall sit still here till we please to close the debate!" Edmunds, and some privy councillors, in vain endeavoured to release the speaker and to support his opinion. Many opposed, and Selden exclaimed, "It is very blamable

[1629 A.D.]

that the speaker, a servant of this house, refuses under any pretext to obey. If such obstinacy goes unpunished it will be considered as a precedent, and every speaker may, at any moment, interrupt the business of the house under the pretext of a royal order."

When Finch, notwithstanding this exhortation, refused, with entreaties and tears, to prolong the sitting, his relation and countryman, Peter Hayman, said: "This brings sorrow over our country and disgrace upon our family. For all evil, nay, our ruin, which may ensue, will appear one day as the consequence of your base conduct, and be spoken of only with indignation and contempt. If, however, the speaker persists in not doing his duty, he must be called to account and another chosen."

During this dispute Eliot had drawn up a protest which was read by Holles and adopted by the majority, though not without much noise and confusion. This remonstrance was in substance, "That all who should seek to extend or to introduce Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, or other heretical doctrines, who should advise the levying of tonnage and poundage without consent of parliament, or who should collect or voluntarily pay these taxes, should be considered as an enemy to his country and a betrayer of the liberties of England."

Meantime the king, being informed of the agitation that had taken place, sent an officer again to order the prorogation in due form; he, however, found the doors of the house locked, at which Charles was so incensed that he sent for the guard to force the entrance, but before it arrived the house had broken up. On the 10th of March the king went to the upper house, and when only a part of the house of commons had appeared at the bar, he addressed the lords as follows: "I have never come here on a more disagreeable business, namely, to dissolve this parliament; many will perhaps wonder why I did not give this commission to another, as it is a principle with kings to leave everything unpleasant to their ministers, and to take what is pleasing upon themselves. Considering, however, that justice is executed as much by the punishment of vice as by the recommendation and reward of virtue, I considered it necessary to come here to-day in person, to declare to you, my lords, and to all the world, that the disobedient conduct of the house of commons is the only cause for the dissolution of parliament. Those entirely misconceive me who believe that I lay equal blame on all the members of the house of commons, for I know among them as many dutiful and loyal subjects as any in the world, and am aware that there are only some vipers among them, who have deceived many but not infected all."

Immediately after the dissolution of parliament the king published very circumstantial declarations, in which he endeavoured to prove that the house of commons had, on many occasions, manifested ill-will, had excited unfounded suspicion, raised useless disputes, proposed injurious innovations, and sought to acquire reputation by setting the state in a flame, as Herostratus with the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. Conformably to this declaration, ten members of the house of commons were ordered to be arrested, and their effects to be put under seal, six days before the formal dissolution. Holles, Eliot, Hobart, and Hayman were first summoned before the privy council. Eliot, being questioned respecting his language in the house, answered, "I am ready to account for my words and actions to the house of commons if it calls upon me to do so, but here I am only a private man, and need not answer for anything that I did as member of parliament." Hobart spoke to the same effect, and added, "I should like to know by what legal authority I can be examined here, as no power on earth ever has demanded, or has a right to demand, an account

[1629-1632 A.D.]

of what is done in parliament. However, I do not hesitate to confess that by the direction of the house I locked the door and put the key into my pocket."

The sentence of the court was that the accused should be fined from £500 to £2,000, and be imprisoned during the king's pleasure, and not liberated till they should give security for their good behaviour, submit and acknowledge their fault. All the judges except one agreed in this sentence; some of the persons condemned were liberated after paying the fine and giving security; others died in prison because they could not, or would not, comply with the conditions. Eliot, being attacked by severe illness in consequence of the unhealthiness of the prison, wrote a petition to the king requesting permission to enjoy fresh air. The king, however, returned it, saying, "Not humble enough.' In all his sufferings Eliot' remained courageous, energetic, and undaunted, and would rather suffer death than deny his opinions. He died on the 27th of November, 1632. d

"But," says Forster, "revenges there are which death cannot satisfy, and natures that will not drop their hatreds at the grave. The son desired to carry his father's remains to Port Eliot, there to lie with those of his ancestors, and the king was addressed once more. The youth drew up a humble petition that his majesty would be pleased to permit the body of his father to be carried into Cornwall, to be buried there. Whereto was answered at the foot of the petition, 'Lett Sir John Eliot's body be buried in the churche of that parish where he dyed.' And so he was buried in the Tower. No stone marks the spot where he lies, but as long as freedom continues in England he will not be without a monument."t

By these declarations and punishments Charles thought that he had gained all the unprejudiced, and frightened all the ill-disposed; but in truth these events were by no means judged of by all alike, and with the differences of opinion were connected the most opposite wishes and hopes. The court party (which liked to be called the legal and conservative) said, in case parliament will not give way, government must be carried on without it, and its dissolution brings relief from senseless zealots and presumptuous fools. At some future time, when the members and the people have become wise, it may be called together again or not; for nobody has the power or the right to compel the king on this point; nay, if we inquire into the highest, the divine right, it knows nothing of parliaments, upper and lower houses, elections, and speakers, but simply orders the people to obey the magistrates. And not merely the clergy, but the judges, laid down the principle that the king can do no wrong, and the parliament could the less limit the king's absolute rights, as he is the source of all right, and may, if it appears necessary, dispense with all laws.

Those who took a different view of the subject answered: whether the king will have the power to govern without a parliament, the future will decide; but that he has no right to do so, is manifest from the clear letter of the laws and the custom of centuries. His rights are inviolable only if he acknowledges and performs his duty, and he is no less subject to the law than any other person. What the parliament politely called a petition of right became, by the royal sanction, a law binding all parties, and he who denies this very

[To Eliot belongs the glory of being the first to see plainly that Charles' isolation was a fruitful seed of evil. It was for him to suffer as those suffer who see that which their fellows cannot see. Like the Swiss warrior, he had gathered into his own bosom the spear-points of the adverse host. His countrymen would follow by-and-by through the breach which he had made at the cost of his life.-GARDINER.®]

H. W.-VOL. XIX. 2 O

[1629-1633 A.D.] significantly indicates that still stronger guarantees against the arbitrary will of the king must be found. With respect to religion and eternal salvation, a foreign more than papal despotism can be still less tolerated than unlimited tyranny in the state; lastly, it is quite absurd that officers who violate the plainest laws should be freed by a royal order from all responsibility.

Meantime, very much depended upon the persons whom the king would employ, and how he would govern without a parliament. With respect to the former, Clarendon, a partisan of the court, says in substance: "The lord-keeper Coventry, a prudent, well-informed man, who never went beyond his sphere, sometimes censured as inactive because he would not assist in the innovations, the consequences of which he foresaw. The lord-treasurer Weston, not without talents, but immoderately ambitious, profuse, alternately too forward and too timid, without elevation of character and sentiment, and suspected of Catholicism, only not by the Roman Catholics themselves. The earl of Arundel, the possessor of many antiquities, a humourist, properly speaking ignorant, who in general cared very little about court and public affairs. The earl of Pembroke, able and esteemed, but devoted to all kinds of pleasures, especially to women. The earl of Carlisle, an experienced courtier, and well versed in foreign affairs, but a bon vivant, and prodigal in the extreme. The earl of Holland, pliant, and not to be depended upon. The earl of Montgomery, a good judge of dogs and horses."

STRAFFORD AND LAUD

It is evident that all the men here named would not have been capable of directing the affairs of state even in tranquil times, much less at so critical a moment. In fact, two other men soon acquired more decided influence, namely, Thomas Wentworth, afterwards created earl of Strafford, and Laud, who had been raised to the see of Canterbury, after the death of Archbishop Abbot, in August, 1633.

The first was a descendant of the Wentworths who had distinguished themselves in parliament in the reign of Elizabeth, and had himself advocated the rights of the people with energetic vehemence; had supported to the utmost the Petition of Right, and suffered himself to be thrown into prison for refusing to contribute to the loan illegally imposed. Since that time (though not without the fault of the court) indications of more serious designs had appeared among the friends of the popular party, yet nothing had been done to cause a total change of opinions and principles. If, therefore, Strafford, following the honourable invitation of the king, had faithfully united with him, and acted with energy for the preservation of his rights, as well as those of the people, he would merit implicit praise. Instead of this he hurried to the opposite extreme, and thereby proved that his preceding actions rested on no solid foundation, or that he was one of those demagogues who, as is so often the case, are but tyrants in disguise. Whatever his defenders may say, it shows no consistency, no unity of principles and sentiments, for a man to suffer himself to be imprisoned to-day for not paying an unvoted loan, and to-morrow to assist in imprisoning others for refusing to pay the unvoted ship money.

Strafford incontestably possessed great energy of mind and will; from the moment he got the power into his hands he was disposed to make use of it, like the tyrants who sometimes appear in the history of the world, and are, not without reason, celebrated. But while he indiscriminately set aside all the demands of the age for the attainment of this egotistical object, and recognised

[1629 A.D.]

no law but his own will and that of the king, he in a great measure produced the evils which he desired to combat, and blindly plunged himself and his master into the same ruin. A truly great man would have mediated between the two parties in such a manner that they must in the end have acknowledged that their own safety was to be found in his guidance; whereas now, after passion is allayed, all may pity but none can wholly justify him.

Laud acted with respect to the church in the same manner as Strafford in regard to the state. Both were of an equally vehement temper, but Strafford knew very well what was at stake, and yet invited the decisive conflict in too great confidence in his own powers. Laud, who was of a less comprehensive mind, could not at all conceive how any reasonable objection could be made to his ideas and intentions, and though he was himself most obstinate, looked upon all contradiction as criminal obstinacy. He undoubtedly gave his attention to the restoration of the churches, to the appointment of able clergymen, the promotion of learning, and was in his personal concerns well-meaning and blameless. But all these good qualities disappeared when he attempted and was called upon to govern, and yet understood nothing of the times and of the state, and looked at the church in a wholly partial and on that account more tyrannical point of view.d

HALLAM'S REVIEW OF THE THIRD PARLIAMENT

There seems on the whole to be very little ground for censure in the proceedings of this illustrious parliament. I admit that if we believe Charles I to have been a gentle and beneficent monarch, incapable of harbouring any design against the liberties of his people, or those who stood forward in defence of their privileges, wise in the choice of his councillors, and patient in listening to them, the commons may seem to have carried their opposition to an unreasonable length. But if he had shown himself possessed with such notions of his own prerogative, no matter how derived, as could bear no effective control from fixed law, or from the nation's representatives; if he was hasty and violent in temper, yet stooping to low arts of equivocation and insincerity; whatever might be his estimable qualities in other respects, they could act, in the main, not otherwise than by endeavouring to keep him in the power of parliament, lest his power should make parliament but a name.

Every popular assembly truly zealous in a great cause will display more heat and passion than cool-blooded men after the lapse of centuries may wholly approve. But so far were they from encroaching, as our Tory writers pretend, on the just powers of a limited monarch that they do not appear to have conceived, they at least never hinted at, the securities without which all they had obtained or attempted would become ineffectual. No one member of that house in the utmost warmth of debate is recorded to have suggested the abolition of the court of Star Chamber, or any provision for the periodical meeting of parliament.

Though such remedies for the greatest abuses were in reality consonant to the actual unrepealed law of the land, yet, as they implied, in the apprehension of the generality, a retrenchment of the king's prerogative, they had not yet become familiar to their hopes. In asserting the illegality of arbitrary detention, of compulsory loans, of tonnage and poundage levied without consent of parliament, they stood in defence of positive rights won by their fathers, the prescriptive inheritance of Englishmen. Twelve years more of repeated aggressions taught the Long Parliament what a few sagacious men might