Part 283

"The game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost his last stake. It is impossible to trace the mortifications and humiliations which this bad man now had to endure without a feeling of vindictive pleasure. His army was mutinous; his treasury was empty; his people clamoured for a Parliament; addresses and petitions against the government were presented. Strafford was for shooting those who presented them by martial law, but the king could not trust the soldiers. A great council of Peers was called at York, but the king would not trust even the Peers. He struggled, he evaded, he hesitated, he tried every shift rather than again face the representatives of his injured people. At length no shift was left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a Parliament. … On the 3d of November, 1640—a day to be long remembered—met that great Parliament, destined to every extreme of fortune—to empire and to servitude, to glory and to contempt;—at one time the sovereign of its sovereign, at another time the servant of its servants, and the tool of its tools. From the first day of its meeting the attendance was great, and the aspect of the members was that of men not disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution of the late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures would no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us that 'the same men who, six months before, were observed to be of very moderate tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied, talked now in another dialect both of kings and persons; and said that they must now be of another temper than they were the last Parliament.' The debt of vengeance was swollen by all the usury which had been accumulating during many years; and payment was made to the full. This memorable crisis called forth parliamentary abilities, such as England had never before seen. Among the most distinguished members of the House of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, Young, Harry Vane, Oliver St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men exercised a paramount influence over the legislature and the country—Pym and Hampden; and, by the universal consent of friends and enemies, the first place belonged to Hampden."

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

"The resolute looks of the members as they gathered at Westminster contrasted with the hesitating words of the king, and each brought from borough or county a petition of grievances. Fresh petitions were brought every day by bands of citizens or farmers. Forty committees were appointed to examine and report on them, and their reports formed the grounds on which the Commons acted. One by one the illegal acts of the Tyranny were annulled. Prynne and his fellow 'martyrs' recalled from their prisons, entered London in triumph, amid the shouts of a great multitude who strewed laurel in their path. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High Commission, the irregular jurisdictions of the Council of the North, of the Duchy of Lancaster, the County of Chester, and a crowd of lesser tribunals, were summarily abolished. Ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgment in Hampden's case annulled. A statute declaring 'the ancient right of the subjects of this kingdom that no subsidy, custom, impost, or any charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or allies, without common consent of Parliament,' put an end forever to all pretensions to a right of arbitrary taxation on the part of the crown. A Triennial Bill enforced the Assembly of the Houses every three years, and bound the sheriff and citizens to proceed to election if the Royal writ failed to summon them. Charles protested, but gave way. He was forced to look helplessly on at the wreck of his Tyranny, for the Scotch army was still encamped in the north. … Meanwhile the Commons were dealing roughly with the agents of the Royal system. … {854} Windebank, the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, Finch, fled in terror over sea. Laud himself was flung into prison. … But even Laud, hateful as he was to all but the poor neighbours whose prayers his alms had won, was not the centre of so great and universal a hatred as the Earl of Strafford. Strafford's guilt was more than the guilt of a servile instrument of tyranny—it was the guilt of 'that grand apostate to the Commonwealth who,' in the terrible words which closed Lord Digby's invective, 'must not expect to be pardoned in this world till he be dispatched to the other.' He was conscious of his danger, but Charles forced him to attend the Court.' He came to London with the solemn assurance of his master that, "while there was a king in England, not a hair of Strafford's head should be touched by the Parliament." Immediately impeached of high treason by the Commons, and sent to the Tower, he received from the king a second and more solemn pledge, by letter, that, "upon the word of a king, you shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune." But the "word of a king" like Charles Stuart, had neither honor nor gratitude, nor a decent self respect behind it. He could be false to a friend as easily as to an enemy. When the Commons, fearing failure on the trial of their impeachment, resorted to a bill of attainder, Charles signed it with a little resistance, and Strafford went bravely and manfully to the block. "As the axe fell, the silence of the great multitude was broken by a universal shout of joy. The streets blazed with bonfires. The bells clashed out from every steeple."

_J. R. Green, Short History of England, chapter 8, section 6._

The king "was as deeply pledged to Strafford as one man could be to another; he was as vitally concerned in saving the life and prolonging the service of incomparably his ablest servant as was ever any sovereign in the case of any minister; yet it is clear that for some days past, probably ever since the first signs of popular tumult began to manifest themselves, he had been wavering. Four days before the Bill passed the Lords, Strafford as is well known, entreated the king to assent to it. There is no reason to doubt the absolute sincerity with which, at the moment of its conception, the prisoner penned his famous letter from the Tower. That passionate chivalry of loyalty, which has never animated any human heart in equal intensity since Strafford's ceased to beat, inspires every line. … Charles turned distractedly from one adviser to another, not so much for counsel as for excuse. He did not want his judgment guided, but his conscience quieted; and his counsellors knew it. They had other reasons, too, for urging him to his dishonour. Panic seems to have seized upon them all. The only man who would not have quailed before the fury of the populace was the man himself whose life was trembling in the balance. The judges were summoned to declare their opinion, and replied, with an admirable choice of non-committing terms, that 'upon all that which their Lordships have voted to be proved the Earl of Strafford doth deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason.' Charles sent for the bishops, and the bishops, with the honourable exception of Juxon, informed him that he had two consciences,—a public and a private conscience,—and that 'his public conscience as a king might not only dispense with, but oblige him to do, that which was against his conscience as a man.' What passed between these two tenants in common of the royal breast during the whole of Sunday, May 9th, 1641, is within no earthly knowledge; but at some time on that day Charles's public conscience got the better of its private rival. He signed a commission for giving the royal assent to the Bill, and on Monday, May 10th, in the presence of a House scarcely able to credit the act of betrayal which was taking place before them, the Commissioners pronounced the fatal Le roi le veult over the enactment which condemned his Minister to the block. Charles, of course, might still have reprieved him by an exercise of the prerogative, but the fears which made him acquiesce in the sentence availed to prevent him from arresting its execution."

_H. D. Traill, Lord Stafford, pages 195-198._

"It is a sorry office to plant the foot on a worm so crushed and writhing as the wretched king … [who abandoned Strafford] for it was one of the few crimes of which he was in the event thoroughly sensible, and friend has for once cooperated with foe in the steady application to it of the branding iron. There is in truth hardly any way of relieving the 'damned spot' of its intensity of hue even by distributing the concentrated infamy over other portions of Charles's character. … When we have convinced ourselves that this 'unthankful king' never really loved Strafford; that, as much as in him lay, he kept the dead Buckingham in his old privilege of mischief, by adopting his aversions and abiding by his spleenful purposes; that, in his refusals to award those increased honours for which his minister was a petitioner, on the avowed ground of the royal interest, may be discerned the petty triumph of one who dares not dispense with the services thrust upon him, but revenges himself by withholding their well-earned reward;—still does the blackness accumulate to baffle our efforts. The paltry tears he is said to have shed only burn that blackness in. If his after conduct indeed had been different, he might have availed himself of one excuse,—but that the man, who, in a few short months, proved that he could make so resolute a stand somewhere, should have judged this event no occasion for attempting it, is either a crowning infamy or an infinite consolation, according as we may judge wickedness or weakness to have preponderated in the constitution of Charles I. … As to Strafford's death, the remark that the people had no alternative, includes all that it is necessary to urge. The king's assurances of his intention to afford him no further opportunity of crime, could surely weigh nothing with men who had observed how an infinitely more disgusting minister of his will had only seemed to rise the higher in his master's estimation for the accumulated curses of the nation. Nothing but the knife of Felton could sever in that case the weak head and the wicked instrument, and it is to the honour of the adversaries of Strafford that they were earnest that their cause should vindicate itself completely, and look for no adventitious redress. Strafford had outraged the people—this was not denied. He was defended on the ground of those outrages not amounting to a treason against the king. For my own part, this defence appears to me decisive, looking at it in a technical view, and with our present settlement of evidence and treason. {855} But to concede that point, after the advances they had made, would have been in that day to concede all. It was to be shown that another power had claim to the loyalty and the service of Strafford—and if a claim, then a vengeance to exact for its neglect. And this was done. … One momentary emotion … escaped … [Strafford] when he was told to prepare for death. He asked if the king had indeed assented to the bill. Secretary Carleton answered in the affirmative; and Strafford, laying his hand on his heart, and raising his eyes to heaven, uttered the memorable words,—'Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.' Charles's conduct was indeed incredibly monstrous."

_R. Browning, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (Eminent British Statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2, pages 403-406)._

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

_Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, book 3 (volume 1)._

_Lord Nugent, Memorials of Hampden. parts 5-6 (volumes 1-2)._

_Lady T. Lewis, Life of Lord Falkland._

The following are the Articles of Impeachment under which Strafford was tried and condemned:

"Articles of the Commons, assembled in Parliament, against Thomas Earl of Strafford, in Maintenance of their Accusation, whereby he stands charged with High Treason.

I. That he the said Thomas earl of Strafford hath traiterously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the realms of England and Ireland, and, instead thereof, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, against law, which he hath declared by traiterous words, counsels, and actions, and by giving his majesty advice, by force of arms, to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.

II. That he hath traiterously assumed to himself regal power over the lives, liberties of persons, lands, and goods of his majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and hath exercised the same tyrannically, to the subversion and undoing of many, both peers and others, of his majesty's liege people.

III. The better to inrich, and enable himself to go through with his traiterous designs, he hath detained a great part of his majesty's revenue, without giving any legal accounts; and hath taken great sums of money out of the exchequer, converting them to his own use, when his majesty was necessitated for his own urgent occasions, and his army had been a long time unpaid.

IV. That he hath traiterously abused the power and authority of his government, to the increasing, countenancing, and encouraging of Papists, that so he might settle a mutual dependence and confidence betwixt himself and that party, and by their help prosecute and accomplish his malicious and tyrannical designs.

V. That he hath maliciously endeavoured to stir up enmity and hostility between his majesty's subjects of England and those of Scotland.

VI. That he hath traiterously broken the great trust reposed in him by his majesty, of lieutenant general of his Army, by wilfully betraying divers of his majesty's subjects to death, his majesty's Army to a dishonourable defeat by the Scots at Newborne, and the town of Newcastle into their hands, to the end that, by effusion of blood, by dishonour, by so great a loss as of Newcastle, his majesty's realm of England might be engaged in a national and irreconcilable quarrel with the Scots.

VII. That, to preserve himself from being questioned for these and other his traiterous courses, he laboured to subvert the right of parliaments, and the ancient course of parliamentary proceedings, and, by false and malicious slanders, to incense his maj. against parliaments.—By which words, counsels, and actions, he hath traiterously, and contrary to his allegiance, laboured to alienate the hearts of the king's liege people from his maj. to set a division between them, and to ruin and destroy his majesty's kingdoms, for which they do impeach him of High Treason against our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity. And he the said earl of Strafford was lord deputy of Ireland, or lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lieutenant general of the Army there, under his majesty, and a sworn privy counsellor to his maj. for his kingdoms both of England and Ireland, and lord president of the North, during the time that all and every of the crimes and offences before set forth were done and committed; and he the said earl was lieutenant general of his majesty's Army in the North parts of England, during the time that the crimes and offences in the 5th and 6th Articles set forth were done and committed.—And the said commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other Accusation or Impeachment against the said earl, and also of replying to the Answer that he the said earl shall make unto the said Articles, or to any of them, and of offering proof also of the premises, or any of them, or of any other Accusation or Impeachment that shall be by them exhibited, as the case shall, according to the course of parliaments, require; and do pray that the said earl may be put to answer to all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examination, trial, and judgment, may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to law and justice."

_Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, volume 2, pages 737-739._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (March-May). The Root and Branch Bill.

"A bill was brought in [March, 1641], known as the Restraining Bill, to deprive Bishops of their rights of voting in the House of Lords. The opposition it encountered in that House induced the Commons to follow it up [May 27] with a more vehement measure, 'for the utter abolition of Archbishops, Bishops. Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries and Canons,' a measure known by the title of the Root and Branch Bill. By the skill of the royal partisans, this bill was long delayed in Committee."

_J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2 (volume 2), page 650._

ALSO IN: _D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 2, book 2, chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (October). Roundheads and Cavaliers. The birth of English parties.

"After ten months of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September, 1641, adjourned for a short vacation and the king visited Scotland. He with difficulty pacified that kingdom, by consenting not only to relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical reform, but even to pass, with a very bad grace, an act declaring that episcopacy was contrary to the word of God. The recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on which the houses met again is one of the most remarkable epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate existence of the two great parties which have ever since alternately governed the country. … {856} During the first months of the Long Parliament, the indignation excited by many years of lawless oppression was so strong and general that the House of Commons acted as one man. Abuse after abuse disappeared without a struggle. If a small minority of the representative body wished to retain the Star Chamber and the High Commission, that minority, overawed by the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be openly defended. At a later period the Royalists found it convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and their opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the king from dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the Triennial Act, the impeachment of the ministers, and the attainder of Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made war on the king. But no artifice could be more disingenuous. Everyone of those strong measures was actively promoted by the men who were afterwards foremost among the Cavaliers. No republican spoke of the long misgovernment of Charles more severely than Colepepper. The most remarkable speech in favour of the Triennial Bill was made by Digby. The impeachment of the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland. The demand that the Lord Lieutenant should be kept close prisoner was made at the bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law attainting Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the majority, but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who entertained a scruple about inflicting death by a retrospective enactment thought it necessary to express the utmost abhorrence of Strafford's character and administration. But under this apparent concord a great schism was latent; and when, in October 1641, the Parliament reassembled after a short recess, two hostile parties, essentially the same with those which, under different names, have ever since contended, and are still contending, for the direction of public affairs, appeared confronting each other. During some years they were designated as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were subsequently called Tories and Whigs; nor does it seem that these appellations are likely soon to become obsolete."

_Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 1._

It was not until some months later, however, that the name of Roundheads was applied to the defenders of popular rights by their royalist adversaries.

See ROUNDHEADS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (November). The Grand Remonstrance.

Early in November, 1641, the king being in Scotland, and news of the insurrection in Ireland having just reached London, the party of Pym, Hampden, and Cromwell "resolved on a great pitched battle between them and the opposition, which should try their relative strengths before the king's return; and they chose to fight this battle over a vast document, which they entitled 'A Declaration and Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom,' but which has come to be known since as The Grand Remonstrance. … The notion of a great general document which, under the name of 'A Remonstrance,' should present to the king in one view a survey of the principal evils that had crept into the kingdom in his own and preceding reigns, with a detection of their causes, and a specification of the remedies, had more than once been before the Commons. It had been first mooted by Lord Digby while the Parliament was not a week old. Again and again set aside for more immediate work, it had recurred to the leaders of the Movement party, just before the king's departure for Scotland, as likely to afford the broad battle-ground with the opposition then becoming desirable. 'A Remonstrance to be made, how we found the Kingdom and the Church, and how the state of it now stands,' such was the description of the then intended document (August 7). The document had doubtless been in rehearsal through the Recess, for on the 8th of November the rough draft of it was presented to the House and read at the clerk's table. When we say that the document in its final form occupies thirteen folio pages of rather close print in Rushworth, and consists of a preamble followed by 206 articles or paragraphs duly numbered, one can conceive what a task the reading of even the first draft of it must have been, and through what a storm of successive debates over proposed amendments and additions it reached completeness. There had been no such debates yet in the Parliament."

_D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 2, book 2, chapter 6._