THE FIRST SITTINGS OF THE LONG PARLIAMENT.
On the morning of November 3, 1640, the Lord Steward
appeared in the vestibule of St. Stephen’s chapel, which
since the Reformation had served as the place of meeting
for the Lower House. The clerk of the crown called over
the names of the members, who took the oaths of allegiance
and supremacy at the hands of the Lord Steward or his
deputies appointed for the purpose. An hour after midday
the King, who had come in a barge from Whitehall, landed
close to Westminster bridge. After hearing a sermon in the
Abbey, he opened Parliament with a speech in the House of
Lords, which the Commons attended. When the latter had
returned to their own house, and taken their seats, the
Treasurer of the King’s household nominated as Speaker a
young barrister, named William Lenthall. He was accepted
with general acclamation, and then conducted by the
Treasurer and one of the secretaries to his chair, a few
feet in front of the chapel window, opposite the places
of the members, which rose in two ranks one behind the
other[206]. The government had at an earlier period thought
of designating as Speaker one of their own supporters,
but in spite of all their efforts had failed to secure
his election. It may be assumed that the hearty reception
accorded to the new Speaker did not so much apply to him,
since he was as yet little known, as express a sense of the
advantage gained through the rejection of the other.
It was remarked with displeasure and dissatisfaction that
the King came to the opening of Parliament, not with the
pomp of a splendid cavalcade, but in a plain barge, just [A.D. 1640.]
as if a session were being opened after a prorogation[207],
and in fact this corresponded with his feelings and
language. He referred in his speech to the previous
Parliament, and now as then entered immediately on
the questions of the Scottish war, and the redress of
grievances. The difference however between the two
occasions was most marked and complete. The King no longer
claimed precedence for the question of supplies for the
war: he left it to Parliament to decide which of the two
subjects it would take up first. But it was his wish and
hope to direct their attention before everything to getting
rid of the Scots from English territory: for the pressure
which weighed on the northern counties, the welfare and
honour of the whole country, rendered this absolutely
necessary. To the same effect spoke the Lord Keeper
Finch; he brought vividly forward the innovations of the
Scots, which were opposed to the fundamental laws of the
realm, and to monarchical institutions. As it had excited
some remark that the King had directly called the Scots
rebels, he deemed it advisable, a couple of days later, to
explain himself in a second speech[208], without however
withdrawing what he had said. On this second occasion he
expressed again his expectation that the Lords would help
him to bring his Scottish subjects to reason--for such in
any case they were, though rebels so long as they were in
England--and to send them back into their own country,
whether they would or no. The Lords seemed to assent to
this. The Scottish commissioners had come to London, and
a conference between the Lords and the Lower House would
shortly be necessary, in order, as they requested, to settle
in Parliament terms of accommodation with them. After a few [A.D. 1640.]
days the Lords actually proposed such a conference, but
the Commons declared that they were at present too busy
with other weighty matters.
Among the latter the King roused at once the liveliest
opposition when he urged in harsh language the removal
of the Scots. It was through the attitude of the Commons
in the last Parliament that the expedition of the Scots
had been undertaken. The whole course of events, the
convocation of another Parliament, originated in the
advance of the Scots into England. How could the Lower
House, which held the Scottish cause to be its own, have
declared against them?
Without paying any attention to the King’s wish to
undertake or to decide on some measure against the Scots,
the Commons, as soon as they had despatched the first
formal business, began the discussion of grievances, with
the intention not merely of removing them, but also of
punishing their authors. The first sitting in which this
took place, that of November 7, is specially remarkable for
the feelings then exhibited.
First, John Hampden submitted a complaint about the
cruelties which had been perpetrated in consequence of a
refusal to pay ship-money, for which he made the Lord Chief
Justice and Judges of the King’s Bench answerable. Next was
mentioned the far grosser ill-treatment which Bastwick and
Burton had suffered at the hands of the spiritual tribunal.
The reply which the King’s servants made, that this was a
matter of State, in which they must first enquire of the
King, was met by a reminder that the King had already given
them leave to enquire into abuses. It was resolved that
Burton and Bastwick should be summoned before Parliament
to plead their own cause. Then the member for Hertford
presented a petition from that county, in which the chief
grievances that had come before the last Parliament were
repeated. The county prayed not merely for the removal
of them, but for the discovery and punishment of their
authors. Harbottle Grimstone, member for Colchester, who
had once expiated in prison his resistance to a loan for
Charles I, called to remembrance the disappointments
which had befallen the members of the last Parliament. [A.D. 1640.]
‘But what good,’ cried he, ‘have our complaints or our
petitions ever done? The judges have overthrown the law,
and the bishops religion.’ The same tone was adopted by
men of generally moderate opinions. Benjamin Rudyard
inveighed against the King’s counsellors, who, while they
talked of his service, really sought nothing but their own
interest; who by their conduct caused confusion, and then
used that very confusion as a pretext for measures seven
times worse than the previous ones. Francis Seymour, the
brother of Hertford, added that no man could any longer
endure the present state of things, without being false to
the duty which he owed not merely to the King but also to
his country. The assembly had thus been brought into such
a state of violent agitation coupled with self-confidence,
as might naturally result from the knowledge of having
suffered wrongs, and of being in a position to terminate
them, when John Pym, who had already spoken once, rose for
the second time to make a general reply.
John Pym belonged to the school of Coke and Cotton, which
desired to see the parliamentary rights that had been won
in Plantagenet times re-established in England. In previous
Parliaments he had appeared as one of the leading opponents
of monopolies, and other exercises of prerogative. James
I had remarked with dislike his imperious and unyielding
spirit. Moreover he like others was actuated by Calvinistic
zeal for that exclusive Protestantism which he regarded
as the only form of religion tolerated by law in England.
He had at all times contended not only against financial
extortion, but also against the favour which Catholic
tendencies found, and had more than once had to encounter
the King’s vengeance in consequence. When Parliaments were
no more held, and judicial decisions legalised ship-money,
the hope of accomplishing any good in England seems to have
failed in him as in others: we find his name among those
who were directing their gaze to the shores beyond the
Atlantic, and the colonies to be planted there. It does
not appear certain whether he or his friends had actually
formed the purpose of emigrating; but there is no doubt
that he, and other like-minded members of the nobility [A.D. 1640.]
and gentry, took part in the commercial intercourse with
Providence, and had acquired possessions in Massachusetts.
George Fenwick, the agent of Lords Say and Brooke, for a
long time would allow no settlement in their districts; he
kept them vacant for the owners, who might at any moment
be expected to arrive[209]. Then came the troubles in
Scotland. The same sentiments which drove Winthrop and
his friends to America, now kept Pym and his associates
in England. The former gave way when the ecclesiastical
tyranny of Laud became unendurable to them: the latter,
when the first commotion began, seized on the hope of
freeing England also from it. The ideas of the Scots
were of a very similar type: rigid Calvinism in doctrine
pervaded all, together with demands for independence in
the Church, and a political constitution which should
secure this. The English and Scottish movements and the
emigration to America sprang from one and the same source.
Among those who promoted the union between England and
Scotland John Pym stands foremost. Through him above all
men it came to pass that the Parliament of the spring
of 1640, instead of voting subsidies against Scotland,
brought into prominent notice the English grievances of
like character. Thereupon followed the rising in arms of
the Scots, and a general ferment in England. John Pym
instigated the popular petitions demanding a Parliament:
he prepared and directed the elections: he was in fact
often pointed out as the author of this Parliament. At
all times a declared enemy of Spain, he had no objection
to enter into alliance with the French, whose interests
were identical with those of England[210]. His peculiar
talent lay in combining opposites, and directing towards
one end movements which were remote from one another. Pym
was no rigorous Puritan: he loved cheerful conviviality:
occasionally, in street ballads or violent lampoons, he is
accused of irregularities of conduct. But from the time
when he reached the point which made political influence [A.D. 1640.]
possible for him, he gave his whole heart to the task he
had set himself. Personal considerations swayed him not;
the interests of his family were of no weight with him; he
died in debt: from earliest dawn till late into the night
he laboured for his end. Other men could but follow him,
or hate him from the bottom of their hearts[211]. Through
the force of the ideas of which he was the champion, he is
for all time a man of great historical importance: through
the zeal and good fortune with which he acted, he gained an
unique political position. He was the representative of the
opposition in the old Parliament, and of the alliance with
the Scots which characterised the new. He could reckon on
producing a great impression by every word he spoke.
In parliamentary assemblies the most influential speeches
will be, not those which approach most nearly to the ideal
of classical eloquence, but those which best correspond
to the education and mental tendencies prevalent at the
time. Pym’s speeches, as has been observed, move in the
fetters of scholastic distinctions: but that was the
form in which men of that epoch were wont to think, in
consequence of the style and method of teaching then in
vogue. They are solid, energetic, and altogether calculated
to win acceptance for the conclusions to which they point.
On this occasion he entered in more detail than before
into the source and nature of the evils from which England
was suffering. He attributed them to the violence of the
spiritual and perversion of the temporal courts, above
all to the contempt for the privileges of Parliament and
the favour shown to Papists, even in military employment.
He illustrated each of his positions by quoting piquant,
pertinent, and sensational particulars, in order to support
the conclusion that a plan had been formed for altering
and destroying piecemeal, not merely the established
religion, but also the constitutional form of government.
This, he said, was not only treason, but the greatest of
all imaginable treasons: it touched alike the King and the [A.D. 1640.]
kingdom[212]. To direct the general zeal towards the
discovery and punishment of the authors of these treasons
and their accomplices was the special object of his words,
and he attained it fully.
The majority of the Lower House besides was strongly
inclined to exclusiveness. They would endure no one in
the House who had shared in the exaction of the last
imposts, no monopolist, no projector, above all no one who
was prevented by his creed from joining in the Eucharist
according to the Anglican ritual. The Lower House could
not be regarded as an assembly of lawgivers who intended
to establish the principles of equal justice for all:
their hostility to the royal prerogative led them rather
to endeavour to renew, with other laws, those statutes
against the Catholics which had been passed in the hottest
times of the religious contest. All breaches of positive
law, according to their understanding of it, they were
resolved to punish as offences, without any regard to royal
prerogative. Everything breathed a decidedly aggressive
spirit. In parliamentary meetings of the leading members
this course was systematically planned, and the resolution
taken that the Lower House should act as a sort of high
court of enquiry for the kingdom. While it was thought
expedient to combine all grounds of complaint in one great
remonstrance, it was generally agreed to spare the King,
to ignore his personal share, and always to mention his
name with respect[213]. All the blame was to be cast on his
advisers. They went through the list of men who had most
participated in the misgovernment, in the Privy Council,
on the episcopal and judicial benches, finding many who
might be held criminally responsible, and ending with the
special confidential advisers of the King, the junta by
which affairs had been managed hitherto, and against which
both kingdoms had common grounds of complaint. Hence one
of the hardest and weightiest questions of parliamentary
life came again to the front. When James I and Charles
raised their favourites to the highest posts, so that men
who were their mere personal dependants wielded the whole
power of the State, we have seen already how often and how [A.D. 1640.]
zealously both Lords and Commons resisted such
inclinations. Charles I was always extremely sensitive
on this point: more than once parliaments were dissolved
because they harped on this topic. For a long time Charles
I had ceased to have any personal favourites, but the
leading members of his government identified themselves
with his absolutist and anti-parliamentary policy. It must
be left undecided whether the schemes of the administration
originated chiefly with the King or his ministers: they
were agreed in the idea of a government to be carried
on essentially through prerogative. This intimate
connexion between the royal authority and the holders of
administrative power decided the leaders of the Parliament
to begin operations by an attack on the ministers. Not
that they were convinced that the ministers had in fact
acted independently of the King, and merely covered with
his name their own wills and purposes; but a few great
examples would re-establish the right which Parliament had
enjoyed in early centuries, and sometimes exercised in
later times, to bring men of the highest position before
its tribunal, to subject the administration to its control,
and render it responsible. On this very ground King Charles
had avoided convoking parliaments, because he feared the
reappearance of this demand, which touched the very sources
of his power, the means by which the general direction of
affairs devolve on the crown. Now however in the course of
events a Parliament was assembled in which his opponents
had the upper hand: what was to prevent a return to the
policy of earlier Parliaments? No one as yet entertained,
at any rate consciously, the purpose of overthrowing the
monarchy; but it was intended to confine its operations
within narrow limits, and to ensure the preponderance of
the parliamentary over the royal authority. They wished too
to destroy the ministers, to take vengeance on those whom
they had hitherto been compelled to fear, from whom they
had suffered personal wrongs: it was now the ministers’
turn to experience a reverse of fortune, and feel the power
of their enemies.
No one was better qualified to lead the attack than John
Pym, who had himself announced it in the above-mentioned
speech. As in former years he had contended against [A.D. 1640.]
Cranfield at the side of Buckingham, then against the
latter himself, so too it was well remembered, at least
by members of Parliament, with what effect he had battled
against Montague and Manwaring[214].
At the time that Wentworth deserted the popular party,
Pym is said to have told him that he was going headlong
to destruction. This was the man who now for a long time
had most thoroughly personified royalist tendencies: on
him the first and decisive attack must be made. Pym had
for some time been preparing to bring about the fulfilment
of his own prediction. When therefore, at the beginning
of the appointment of committees, Pym proposed that the
affairs of Ireland should be debated in a committee of the
whole house, every one saw what his object was. The friends
of the Viceroy demanded a separate committee. But the
majority on which Pym could reckon when it came to actual
impeachment, were on his side in the preliminary question
also: by a trifling majority, but still in legal form, the
resolution was adopted that the whole house should form the
committee on Irish affairs.
It has always excited surprise that Wentworth Earl of
Strafford appeared in Parliament at all. For even if he
could have deceived himself so far as not to believe
that impeachment and danger to his life awaited him, yet
obviously he would have been much safer with the army, or
in Ireland, or abroad. It has been said that he represented
the whole case to the King[215], but that the latter, who
still thought himself strong enough to protect his friends
under all circumstances, reassured him, and requested his [A.D. 1640]
presence on the ground that he could not dispense with his
advice. We need not however believe that Strafford trusted
to this assurance. He knew full well, and avowed the
knowledge, that there was a necessity which overruled the
King’s good-will, for owing to the presence of the Scottish
army he was in a measure at the mercy of the Puritans.
But his friends implored him to come, in order to prevent
blunders and follies such as had already been committed.
Very unwillingly he tore himself away from Wodehouse, his
country seat: but he desired to obey the King’s wish,
and not to be untrue to his party. Moreover he had some
confidence in his cause: it is asserted that he had in his
hands proofs of an alliance between his enemies and the
Scots which could be construed as treason, and that he
intended to found thereon an impeachment against them.
Accusation against accusation: but the one depended on the
notions of old English loyalty; the other had as its motive
and aim the idea of parliamentary government: the former
treated as high treason the alliance with the Scots, the
latter the war against them. Their opposition corresponded
to that between the chief combatants, and the principles
embraced by each. Had the King obtained the upper hand in
the field, perhaps the first might have prevailed: but
after he had sustained a political defeat, the success of
the second became more probable.
Strafford came to London on November 10, and that evening
had an audience at Whitehall: next morning he appeared in
the Upper House to take his seat, and then repaired again
to Whitehall. There he was informed that the Commons were
busy with an impeachment against him: he replied that
he would look his enemies in the face. On this morning,
the 11th, the chamber in which the Commons assembled was
closed and the key laid on the table, in order that no one
might absent himself, and no stranger might come into the
house. All other business was set aside, in order that the
house might devote itself to the impeachment of Strafford.
A committee of seven members, among whom were Pym and
Hampden, was deputed to draw it up: after their draft had
been approved, Pym himself was appointed to carry it to the
Upper House. At the head of about three hundred members he [A.D. 1640]
appeared before them: ‘My Lords,’ said he, ‘in the name
of the Commons of Parliament and of the country I impeach
Thomas Earl of Strafford, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of
high treason. I am commissioned to request that he be
removed from Parliament and committed to prison.’ The Lords
had come to no conclusion when Strafford, with haughty and
lowering demeanour, entered the house and went towards his
seat. In the morning he had been received by every one
with respect, now a hollow murmur greeted him. He might
have intended to take part in the debate, and so have the
opportunity of at once taking his own line, but he was
obliged to retire into the antechamber until a resolution
was taken respecting him. The Upper House could not well do
otherwise than assent to the request of the Commons. The
Viceroy, who in the morning was regarded by most men as
lord and master of the executive power of England, was seen
in the afternoon to kneel at the bar of the Upper House,
and in obedience to the commands which he there received,
follow the gentleman-usher to his house as a prisoner[216].
Prosecution was now of necessity directed also against
the man whom the English and Scottish Puritans regarded
as the source of those torrents of destruction which had
overflowed the Church, Archbishop Laud. On December 18 an
impeachment for high treason against him was laid before
the Upper House, and his arrest ordered. Rising from prayer
in his chapel, he entered the barge which was to carry him
to the Tower: he was confident of so defending himself
before Parliament as to make the justice of his cause
obvious; but had this been more irreproachable than it was,
he had as little chance of making it prevail, before a
Parliament such as was then assembled, as the Puritans had
had before his own spiritual tribunals.
Inferior in external dignity, but not less important in
fact, was the office of Secretary Windebank, who, as his
letters show, exercised much influence over the King,
and enjoyed the confidence of the Queen: he was not only
favourable to Spain, like Strafford, but also inclined [A.D. 1640]
towards Catholicism. The chief articles of an impeachment
against him were already drawn up. His impending arrest
was a danger not merely to himself, but to all who were
associated with him: it was feared that in the proceedings
against Strafford and Laud he would be compelled to give
evidence which would destroy them utterly. With one of his
subordinates who knew as much as himself, he avoided arrest
by flight into France: he had a pass from the King[217].
The French minister hastened to warn his government against
him, as a very suspicious person.
Meanwhile the impeachment against John Lord Finch had
been prepared by examination of the judges, over whom he
had exercised illegitimate influence in the matter of
ship-money. His friends prevailed so far that he was first
heard once more in his defence. Quitting the woolsack in
the Upper House, in his official dress, the great seal of
the kingdom, with the bag which held it, in his hand, he
appeared before the Commons. The excuses which he alleged
were not positively false: moreover he was able to plead
some attempts to defend and shelter the preachers. These
actions, the beauty and eloquence of his language, and his
tone of submission, won him a certain amount of sympathy.
Nevertheless impeachment and imprisonment would undoubtedly
have been his lot, had not his friends succeeded in
interposing sufficient delay to allow of his also taking to
flight. He sent the great seal secretly to the king, and
took ship for Holland[218].
Thus the men to whose hands had been committed all the
chief offices of state in the army, the Church, the law,
foreign affairs, were banished or imprisoned: in one way
or another Parliament proceeded further to make sure of
the most interested judges, the most confidential friends
of Strafford, the most active bishops. All those who had
taken a consenting and active part in the government saw [A.D. 1640]
themselves personally threatened. Not only a change of
persons, but an alteration of the mode of government had to
be achieved: there was a complete and systematic revolution
of principles. It was now definitely established that
Parliamentary privilege was the fundamental law of the
realm, and that every infringement of it, although with the
King’s approval, should be punished as a crime. Henceforth
there was a change in the power, an offence against which
constituted high treason: formerly it was the King, now it
was the entire Parliamentary body. In their hands was the
sword of vengeance: the victims of the Star Chamber were
set free, the members of the tribunal impeached.
Sundry resolutions corresponding to this idea were
adopted by Parliament; for instance, in relation to
ship-money[219], which was declared contrary to the laws
of the realm, to the private rights of subjects, and to
previous statutes. Care was taken to restore to those who
had paid them the last raised contributions, which were
still in the hands of the sheriffs. This gave the bench of
judges greater security against arbitrary dismissal. But as
the chief source of the evil was seen to lie in the long
intermission of Parliaments and their abrupt dissolution,
the most special care was directed towards making this
impossible. The general feeling was that they could never
long reckon on the good behaviour of the ministers unless
the rod of responsibility was always hung over them, that
otherwise their arbitrary power would in a short time
grow again like Samson’s hair, and that the only means
of keeping good ministers lay in the frequent repetition
of Parliaments[220]. Demands similar to those of which
the Scots had set the example, were made in England also,
that Parliament should meet every three years. Neither
the power to convoke nor the power to dissolve it was to
be left entirely to the King’s pleasure. It was resolved
that if the King had not summoned a Parliament before
September 3 of the third year, the peers of the realm were
to issue the necessary writs in the King’s name: should [A.D. 1641]
they prove dilatory, the sheriffs of the counties and
mayors of the towns were to order the elections: and in
case even these did nothing, the burgesses and freeholders
might come to the poll unsummoned. On the same principle
Parliament was neither to be dissolved nor prorogued until
the session had lasted fifty days, without the assent of
both Houses.
These proposed enactments met with some opposition from
the Lords: but as they involved interests common to both
Houses, they passed that House also. We are assured that
the King was fully sensible of the injurious effect which
these measures must have on himself[221]: he foresaw that
the censorship to which his ministers and himself would be
subjected every three years must destroy the freedom of
his designs, and limit his authority over the people. When
the bill was presented to him he showed himself extremely
unwilling to accept it. But an outspoken refusal once
before had stopped all further negotiations: moreover there
was a feeling at court that it would have been better for
the King himself if his ministers had had no option in this
respect. Charles I was induced to give way on February 16;
the clerk of the Parliament was instructed to utter the old
Norman formula, ‘Le roi le veut.’
Among those who originally were doomed to destruction was
Hamilton: but at the crisis when the Scots penetrated into
England a change of policy was observed in him. Though
formerly he had recommended extreme measures, he was not
prepared to risk his life for them. He now recommended the
King to grant the demands of the Scots, and entered into
an alliance with their leaders, his former opponents, and
with the lords of the opposition party. By his mediation
the most conspicuous of the latter, Bedford and Hertford,
Essex, Mandeville, Saville, Say, as well as Bristol,
were admitted into the Privy Council, thereby obtaining
a certain share in the administration. It was generally
believed at the time that this suggestion proceeded from
the Scots, who desired to see their friends in the King’s [A.D. 1641]
council, in order to ensure the granting of their
demands. The court based on it the prospect of a better
understanding with the Parliament. Hamilton had at first
some difficulty, but ultimately the King once more obeyed
the voice to which for some years he had been wont to pay
special attention[222].
On the whole we may suppose that the King under this
influence cherished the idea of conducting a Parliamentary
government, and, since his late ministers had fallen, of
trying to work it through members of the opposition. But
circumstances were such that very little could be achieved
by means of a mere change of ministry. The restraints
imposed on the King meant far more than mere alterations
in form: the principle from which they sprang touched the
vital point of his power. And the tendencies of a totally
different nature and extent which were exhibited in the
spirit both of members of Parliament and of the people were
such that no accommodation with them was possible.
FOOTNOTES:
[206] Journal of the House of Commons ii.
[207] Giustiniano, Nov. 9. ‘Risolutione la quale--palesa a
sudditi, d’avere acconsentito alla convocatione costretto
delle sole violenze dell’ inimico.’ Clarendon, Reb. Book
ii. Guizot, Book iii.
[208] The editing of these speeches in Rushworth and in the
Parliamentary History leaves much to be desired. In the
second speech the King is made to say, ‘when I called my
Lords and Great ones at York,’ although ‘Great ones’ is not
an English political phrase. The King really said ‘when I
called the lords of my great counsel to York:’ he accuses
the Scots, because they ‘did cavil a delay,’ not merely
‘delay.’ As has before been said, all these important
documents require to be better edited.
[209] Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay i. 64. Garrard to
Strafford, December 1637. Letters ii. 191.
[210] Montereuil: ‘J’ay entretenu longtems le Sr. Pimme:
il me doit tenir bien informé de tout qui se passera au
parlement, où il m’a témoigné qu’il seroit bien aise
de servir en même temps son pais et la France, dont il
reconnoit que les interêts sont unis.’
[211] ‘All men who knew him either loved or hated him in
extremity.’
[212] ‘Their designs walk on four feet.’ He added a fifth
foot, like the Assyrian monsters. The outline of his
speech was known already from Nalson i. 495. There is now
also the information from D’Ewes’ Journal, in Sanford’s
Illustrations.
[213] Narrative in Sanford, 307. There is a notice in May
to the same effect.
[214] Montereuil speaks of him as ‘fort éloquent et de
grand credit parmi le peuple, un de ceux qui parlèrent avec
plus de hardiesse dans de dernier parlement.’
[215] The information comes from Whitelocke’s Memorials,
not a really independent authority for these years. It is
chiefly compiled from Sanderson, from which Whitelocke
has extracted at this place the notice of the evil omen
derived from the choice of the day. Sanderson is silent
about Strafford’s letter, which Whitelocke quotes. On the
contrary, he makes him confer with his friends on the way,
and form his determination on the ground that he intended
to impeach his opponents. ‘He himself had digested his
intelligence into the form of an impeachment.’ Strafford’s
frame of mind is shown in a letter of Nov. 5. Fairfax,
Correspondence ii. 52.
[216] Contemporary narrative, in Sanford 312.
[217] State Trials iv. 44. Montereuil: ‘Deux raisons l’ont
obligé à sortir d’Angleterre, l’une pour se sauver du
danger qui le menaçoit, l’autre pour ne point contribuer
à la perte de ses amis, l’archevesque de Canterbury et le
Lieutenant d’Irlande, comme il eut fait asseurement, s’il
cust été obligé de déposer contre eux.’
[218] From a narrative proceeding from Clarendon, but
afterwords not inserted by him in his historical work,
given by Seward and in the State Trials iv. 18.
[219] Parliamentary History ix. 42.
[220] Lord Digby’s Speech for frequent Parliaments. Parl.
Hist. ix. 157.
[221] Giustiniano, 11 Gennaio: ‘Vivamente s’impiega per
divertire la riuscita di cosi ardito disegno, che colpisce
nel piu vivo la di lui sovranita reale.’
[222] Baillie i. 305: ‘The first motion of it was bitterlie
rejected by the King; yet the Marqueis by his wisdome
brought him unto it.’