Part 282

Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June, 1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd': there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February, 1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way into History. … A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there. Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' … the King hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day, while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to 'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had orders to the contrary; persisted in that;—and at last took to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days; and consider what to do! On the second day, which was Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them, who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr. Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles; 'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention, and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday, 2d of March, 1629."

_T. Carlyle, Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, chapter 4._

ALSO IN: J. Forster, Sir John Eliot: a Biography, book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1630. Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, with their royal charter.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1631. Aid to Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

ENGLAND: A. D: 1632. Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

See NOVA SCOTIA (ACADIA): A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1632. The Palatine grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640. The Ecclesiastical despotism of Laud.

"When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one adversary remained—the people, each day more discontented with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne; it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other, evangelical faith and civil liberty. {851} The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to believe that he was not the only one who held his authority from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they were forbidden to preach. … Persecution followed and reached them everywhere. … Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful, magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely the details of new ceremonies—sometimes borrowed from Rome, sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists, every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority. … And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more like that of Rome. … Books were published to prove that the doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly tolerated. … The splendour and exclusive dominion of episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself, Laud proceeded to secure its independence. … The divine right of bishops became, in a short time, the official doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king himself. … By the time things had come to this pass, the people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."

_F. P. Guizot, History of the English Revolution of 1640, book 2._

ALSO IN: _D. Neal, History of the Puritans, volume 2, chapters 4-6._

_G. G. Perry, History of the Church of England, chapters 13-16 (volume l)._

_P. Bayne, The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution, chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637. Hostile measures against the Massachusetts Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637. Ship-money.

"The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. … All the promises of the king were violated without scruple or shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent, was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority. Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal times were made pretexts for harassing the people with exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit. Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the victims. … The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an inclement sky. … For the misgovernment of this disastrous period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him, or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. … But Wentworth—whoever names him without thinking of those harsh dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the majesty of an antique Jupiter! … Among the humbler tools of Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns along the coast. These measures, though they were direct violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our shores. {852} It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The nation well understood this; and from one end of England to the other, the public mind was strongly excited. Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But, though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between the people and the crown. … Towards the close of the year 1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this decision was to make the public indignation stronger and deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his reputation to a great height generally throughout the kingdom.'"

_Lord Macaulay, Essays, volume 2 (Nugent's Memorials of Hampden)._

ALSO IN: _J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Hampden._

_S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1642, chapter 74 (volume 7), and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);_

ALSO

_Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, pages 37-53, and 115._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640. Presbyterianism of the Puritan party. Rise of the independents.

"It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the constitution in church or state, or would square their actions by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."

_J. Rushworth, Historical Collection, volume 2, 1355._

"These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the conscientious people of England. There was a sort of imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others. Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery. They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members, and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law, and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party, which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction, gradually arose the party of the independents. … Before the end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities, intellectual, military and civil."

_W. Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

See, also, INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER), A. D. 1646 (MARCH), A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1639. The First Bishops' War in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640. The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War. The Scots Army in England.

"His Majesty having burnt Scotch paper Declarations 'by the hands of the common hangman,' and almost cut the Scotch Chancellor Loudon's head off, and being again resolute to chastise the rebel Scots with an Army, decides on summoning a Parliament for that end, there being no money attainable otherwise. To the great and glad astonishment of England; which, at one time, thought never to have seen another Parliament! Oliver Cromwell sat in this Parliament for Cambridge; recommended by Hampden, say some; not needing any recommendation in those Fen-countries, think others. Oliver's Colleague was a Thomas Meautys, Esq. This Parliament met, 13th April, 1640: it was by no means prompt enough with supplies against the rebel Scots; the king dismissed it in a huff, 5th May; after a Session of three weeks: Historians call it the Short Parliament. His Majesty decides on raising money and an Army 'by other methods': to which end Wentworth, now Earl Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had advised that course in the Council, did himself subscribe £20,000. Archbishop Laud had long ago seen 'a cloud rising' against the Four surplices at Allhallowtide; and now it is covering the whole sky in a most dismal and really thundery-looking manner. His Majesty by 'other methods,' commission of array, benevolence, forced loan, or how he could, got a kind of Army on foot, and set it marching out of the several Counties in the South towards the Scotch Border; but it was a most hopeless Army. The soldiers called the affair a Bishops' War; they mutinied against their officers, shot some of their officers: in various Towns on their march, if the Clergyman were reputed Puritan, they went and gave him three cheers; if of Surplice-tendency, they sometimes threw his furniture out of the window. {853} No fighting against poor Scotch Gospellers was to be hoped for from these men. Meanwhile the Scots, not to be behindhand, had raised a good Army of their own; and decided on going into England with it, this time, 'to present their grievances to the King's Majesty.' On the 20th of August, 1640, they cross the Tweed at Coldstream; Montrose wading in the van of them all. They wore uniform of hodden gray, with blue caps; and each man had a moderate haversack of oatmeal on his back. August 28th, the Scots force their way across the Tyne, at Newburn, some miles above Newcastle; the King's Army making small fight, most of them no fight; hurrying from Newcastle, and all town and country quarters, towards York again, where his Majesty and Strafford were. The Bishops' War was at an end. The Scots, striving to be gentle as doves in their behaviour, and publishing boundless brotherly Declarations to all the brethren that loved Christ's Gospel and God's Justice in England,—took possession of Newcastle next day; took possession gradually of all Northumberland and Durham,—and stayed there, in various towns and villages, about a year. The whole body of English Puritans looked upon them as their saviours. … His Majesty and Strafford, in a fine frenzy at the turn of affairs, found no refuge, except to summon a 'Council of Peers,' to enter upon a 'Treaty' with the Scots; and alas, at last, summon a New Parliament. Not to be helped in any way. … A Parliament was appointed for the 3d of November next;—whereupon London cheerfully lent £200,000; and the Treaty with the Scots at Ripon, 1st October, 1640, by and by transferred to London, went peaceably on at a very leisurely pace. The Scotch Army lay quartered at Newcastle, and over Northumberland and Durham, on an allowance of £850 a day; an Army indispensable for Puritan objects; no haste in finishing its Treaty. The English army lay across in Yorkshire; without allowance except from the casualties of the King's Exchequer; in a dissatisfied manner, and occasionally getting into 'Army-Plots.' This Parliament, which met on the 3d of November; 1640, has become very celebrated in History by the name of the 'Long Parliament.'"

_T. Carlyle, Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 1: 1640._

ALSO IN: _J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford._

_S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1642, chapter 91-94._

_J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 72-73 (volume 7)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640. Acquisition and settlement of Madras.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641. The Long Parliament and the beginning of its work. Impeachment and Execution of Strafford.