CONCESSIONS AND NEW DEMANDS.
King Charles thought that he should be able to direct the
government in spite of the preponderance of parliamentary
power. At the same time with the attainder of Strafford he
signed the bill which made the dissolution of Parliament
dependent on its own consent. He expected that this would
be given when the pressing questions were settled. His own
conviction seems to have been that hitherto he had grasped
at too much, and he induced himself to make other great
concessions.
He had already allowed the substitution, in the patents
of appointments of the judges, for the clause which
made their tenure of office dependent on the pleasure
of the government, of another which made it depend on
good behaviour[259], and so put an end to that arbitrary
removal of judges which made them subservient to the
government. This was a change of universal political
significance, since the dependent position of the
bench of judges was recognised as the origin of those
decisions in favour of the crown on which the government
had based its pretensions. Now however all those courts
were attacked which, at least in part, had served as
instruments of arbitrary power, especially the Court of
High Commission, by which the spiritual jurisdiction had
obtained absolute authority over every deviation from the
principles of the Anglican Church. Next, the Star Chamber,
which through the form of its procedure, that decided [A.D. 1641.]
alone on the facts, the law, and the punishment, and
through the extent of its functions and its harshness
even in doubtful cases had incurred universal
hatred[260]:--finally the special courts in the northern
counties, which had withdrawn a third of the realm from
the ordinary course of justice. The original idea had been
merely to reform them; now however that full political
preponderance had been obtained, it was resolved to
abolish them, so that the common law, which was intimately
connected with political liberty, might everywhere be
re-established. The jurisdiction also of the Privy Council
was confined within narrow limits. The principles of the
Petition of Right in respect to personal liberty now
obtained fresh confirmation. The true ground for arrests
was always to be assigned, and a decision taken before the
court within three days as to its legal validity. The King
hesitated a moment when the bills for the abolition of the
Star Chamber and High Commission were presented to him,
saying that he well knew that thereby he should abandon
various fundamental arrangements made by his ancestors for
the government of Church and State. Nor indeed was their
abolition approved on all hands; for the Star Chamber had
served to tame the ambition of the great vassals, and
the High Commission to hinder the perpetual rise of new
sects, of which the country was very fruitful. Moreover
the loss of the fines, which formed part of the revenue,
was taken into account[261]. But the King would not oppose
his own to the general interest: he wished to put an end
to all dread of future oppression in Church and State,
in order to restore mutual confidence. He spoke to this
effect in accepting the bills about the Star Chamber and
High Commission. He said that he thought none could be
discontented with him who considered what he had conceded
to the present Parliament,--greater independence to the
judges, triennial parliaments, the perpetual right of
granting tonnage and poundage, against the custom of his
ancestors; finally, the abolition of ship-money. He had [A.D. 1641.]
also given up the restoration of the old forest boundaries,
allowing them to remain as they had been in the twentieth
year of his father. He could not admit that the people had
had a right to these concessions: he held firmly to the
view that all was free gift in favour of his subjects, on
whose confidence and obedience he might now more than ever
reckon[262].
He assented to the dismissal of his two armies, the English
and the Irish, convinced that the Scots, now that their
demands were satisfied, would quit English territory. He
himself wished to go to Scotland, according to his promise,
and hold a Parliament there.
It really seemed as if the King was willing to accept his
present position, to abandon not only the views which he
had before prosecuted, but also the modes of government of
his ancestors, so far as they were inconsistent with the
restrictions imposed on him. Some of the chief foundations
of the royal authority which the Tudors had enjoyed had
been removed. But who could assert that the crown could
not be worn, and be worth wearing, under these conditions?
On the other hand it is clear at the first glance how hard
this must again become.
There was some importance in the fact that Charles I was
a born king, with a definite idea of inalienable rights
and duties necessary to be fulfilled, an idea all the more
potent in the indefinite state of the constitution and of
the limits of parliamentary power. The party from which the
great impulse proceeded, and which controlled the debates
with its majority, had made a start which would carry it
beyond the limits of the old constitution. Questions were
already being raised, and tendencies exhibited, which
implied a new and thorough transformation.
In the very foreground appeared the religious question.
The matter of the two petitions relating to church affairs
had in due time been brought before the Upper House, and
referred for discussion to an ecclesiastical committee
composed of lords of both parties. By it a sub-committee
was appointed, in which distinguished theologians of both [A.D. 1641.]
Anglican and Presbyterian opinions, Prideaux and Hacket,
as well as Burgess and Young, took part. The chairman of
both was the astute Williams, who had returned from the
prison in which Laud had confined him, to his seat in
the Upper House. They busied themselves with reversing
Laud’s arrangements, and with the complaints against
his government, but they had no idea of touching on the
constitution of the English episcopate. Men like Williams
lived in the union of two forms of activity, the spiritual
and the temporal. How was it to be expected that the
bishops would rob themselves of their seats in the Upper
House? The temporal lords also were mostly against it.
Among the grievances of which the populace complained in
the turbulent days before Stafford’s condemnation, one
of the most important was that in spite of all petitions
the affairs of the Church were not put in order in a
truly Protestant sense: immediately after his execution
the matter was taken up afresh. In the prevailing temper
it will easily be understood that they then reverted
to the decided demands of the London petition. The
bill had a near political interest, in so far as it
corresponded to the incessant demands of the Scottish
commissioners for conformity. But they did not rest only
on the Presbyterians. Several men of separatist opinions,
Oliver Cromwell, the younger Vane, Haslerig, had allied
themselves to the movement[263]. On May 27 a bill for
the entire abolition of the Anglican establishment was
introduced. Archbishops and bishops, chancellors and
their commissaries, deans, archdeacons, and other chapter
officials were henceforth to exist no longer in the Church
and realm of England; and the King and two Houses of
Parliament were to dispose of the lands, houses and rents
attached to these dignities and offices. After all that
had happened this motion nevertheless caused the greatest
sensation, for none of the changes which had preceded
it were at all like this. Neither ship-money nor Star
Chamber, neither Stafford’s death nor Laud’s prosecution
were comparable to this attempt to overthrow the church [A.D. 1641.]
government of England, and introduce a new one. The
proposal was that in every diocese commissions should stand
in the place of the bishops. The plan found more support
in the Lower House now than formerly; the second reading
was carried by a majority of 139 votes against 118. An
objection had been taken that they ought to wait till
the Lords had definitely decided on the first moderate
proposition, which had not yet taken place. They did so
just at this time (June 7). Even under these circumstances
their decision was in the negative; for the Lords would not
lend a hand to a change even in the political position of
the bishops whereby the Upper House would be transformed.
The result however was that the new bill was pressed with
greater zeal than ever.
On June 11 the House resolved itself into a committee to
discuss it. Edward Hyde, who was in the chair, asserted at
a later period that though he could not himself speak in
the debate, yet he had hindered the progress of the measure
by giving preference to the speakers who rose in opposition
to it[264]. But we know well the almost insuperable
difficulties involved in the nature of the case. How should
a measure not meet with opposition which proposed to alter
the definite position of one of the greatest powers in the
state, the House of Lords, and to abolish totally that
ecclesiastical authority which had existed ever since the
introduction of Christianity into England, and had not
only survived the Reformation, but largely contributed to
it. Episcopacy had grown up in the closest connexion with
all English institutions. If the guilt could fairly be
imputed to it of having shared in the last encroachments
of the royal power, it seemed sufficient, as the Upper
House had determined, to reverse the acts tending in this
direction, and restore the previous order of things. The
opposition however was redoubled when it came to the
question of replacing this institution. It was proposed to
establish in each diocese an authority analogous to the
episcopal, which should be moderated by the participation,
in some form or other, of the remaining clergy. Besides,
there was an agreement between the two parties as to the [A.D. 1641.]
removal of the bishops, none as to any substitute for them:
on this point their wishes and purposes were in direct
opposition. Even under another chairman there would have
been some difficulty in coming to a conclusion: but neither
his dexterity, nor the intrinsic complexity of the matter,
prevented some fundamental parts of the bill and reasons
for them being agreed to by the majority[265]. This was
quite a different thing from the mere petition of the
London citizens: a bill drawn on more advanced principles
now threatened the very core of the ecclesiastical body
with complete removal.
Meanwhile John Pym was proceeding with no less
comprehensive proposals to a thorough reform of the
political administration. There was a talk of the
long-meditated journey to Scotland, which the King would
no longer postpone. In a conference with the Lords (June
24), Pym brought forward a number of proposals which it was
desirable to settle before this journey was undertaken.
The sum of them was that the King should dismiss those
of his councillors against whom there was just ground of
complaint, and entrust his affairs to officers in whom
Parliament had reason to place confidence[266].
The removal of an unpopular minister, even if so strong a
step should frighten others who were inclined to follow
in his footsteps, was not the final aim of Parliament:
it would no longer endure in the highest offices of the
court and state either secret or open opponents. The King
was warned not to let matters go so far as that their
names should be mentioned. The Prince of Wales in future
ought to be surrounded by men publicly held by Parliament
to be trustworthy: neither Jesuits nor Capuchins were to
be endured in the Queen’s household: no one who entered
England with instructions from the Pope was to enjoy the
protection of the law: if the King left the country a
guard of trusty nobles was to prevent any Popish intrigues
of the Queen’s court. The internal administration of the [A.D. 1641.]
realm was to be ordered in the same way: none but adherents
of the Parliament should hold the chief posts in the
counties, or be entrusted by them with subordinate offices.
With these was combined the idea of joining in an oath
by which the obedience of the officers and militia to
parliamentary ordinances should be secured, and of placing
in safe hands the ports of the kingdom and the command of
the fleet.
Various motives may have conspired to produce these
resolutions; the renewed mistrust of the households of the
King and Queen, which naturally held to the prerogative
of the crown, imitation of the Scots, and rivalry with
them, in so far as they aimed at exercising a separate
influence over the King, above all the logical development
of the principles already adopted, which could tolerate
no independent action of the crown. On the occasion of
the King’s journey these tendencies of the predominant
party in the Lower House obtained the fullest expression.
It was proposed that for the time a deputy or _custos
regni_ should be appointed, to give the requisite sanction
to the bills that passed the two Houses, or that royal
functions should be entrusted to the Prince of Wales, who
was still too young for a will of his own, perhaps to the
Elector Palatine, who was very needy: it is even said that
words were uttered to the effect that there was no need
of monarchical forms[267]. If so, this was the first time
that republican sentiments were expressed in the debates of
Parliament.
These things however were as yet far off. Though some of
the Lords agreed with the Commons, there was always in
the Upper House a majority which opposed them in decisive
moments.
It is plain, nevertheless, that the movement was entering
on a new stage. A simple restoration of the constitution
to check the encroachments of the crown would no longer
suffice. The barriers were in danger of being broken down
which the constitution itself placed in the way of the
dominant faction.
The King on his side was resolved not to let himself be [A.D. 1641.]
dragged so far. He believed that the church and monarchy,
and their mutual connexion, were too well established in
England to be very easily overthrown, and thought that he
could easily defend them both, if he could only separate
the affairs of Scotland from those of England; for he
referred to this inter-connexion all the misfortunes which
had befallen him. This was the chief object of the journey
to Scotland for which he was preparing. Among his advisers
some even of those who were reckoned moderate men cherished
this idea. ‘If you may overcome all difficulties there (in
Scotland) I believe it will not be difficult for you to
put all things here (in England) in good order,’ wrote his
secretary, Master Nicholas.
FOOTNOTES:
[259] The words ‘durante bene placito’ were changed into
the words ‘quamdiu se bene gesserint.’
[260] Hallam’s Const. Hist. ii. 196. Blackstone’s
Commentaries iv. 230. Clarendon’s Hist. of the Rebellion
iii. 121.
[261] Giustiniano, July 19, reckons them at £250,000.
[262] Speech of the King, July 5. Nalson ii. 327.
[263] Deering, in Nalson ii. 247.
[264] Lister’s Life of Lord Clarendon i. 113.
[265] Journals ii. June 12.
[266] The ten propositions of the Commons, in Nalson ii.
310:--the 3rd head about his Majesty’s counsells.
[267] So Giustiniano declares ‘redurre la monarchia a
governo democratico.’ In the Diurnall Occurrences it
is only mentioned on the 27th of August: ‘both houses
sate till 10 o’clock at night but could not agree upon
anything.’