DAYS OF THE GRAND REMONSTRANCE.
Wearied with the labours of the long session, the English
Parliament during the King’s absence entered on a recess,
which was to last from September 9 to October 28, not
however without first appointing a committee, chosen of
both Houses, to despatch current business and maintain
order.
Men breathed again after the tension at which the immense
activity of the last ten months had kept their minds: but
when they came quietly to look back upon the past, the
feeling that was evinced was by no means one of entire
satisfaction[274]. There was no blinding themselves to the
fact that they had gone far beyond the prospects which had
floated before the eyes of the majority at the time of the
last elections to Parliament. Instead of a restoration of
the rights of Parliament on the ancient footing[275], the
constitution was endangered, and all power fallen into the
hands of a few men, who had the majority in the divisions.
The members who returned to their counties did not give a
very satisfactory report of the mode of carrying on the
debates, in which they were often prevented from stating
their views, so that there was not complete freedom of [A.D. 1641.]
speech[276]. Disapproval was especially aroused by a
resolution which had been passed in very thin houses during
the last days of the session, and clothed with legal
force without respect to constitutional forms. It related
to spiritual affairs. The Calvinistic communion-tables
that had been set aside were again to be restored, the
pictures and ceremonial vessels which had been introduced
by Laud to be removed, the bowing at the name of the
Redeemer discontinued, and Sunday on the other hand to be
observed with the Sabbatarian rigour of the Scots. Without
having arrived at a complete agreement with the Upper
House, which in its weakened condition still offered some
resistance, but supported by a minority there which under
the circumstances was considerable, the Lower House issued
this ordinance, apparently no longer troubling itself about
the old forms which required the concurrence of the three
components of the legislature. The _ad interim_ commission,
of which John Pym was the most active member, held that
this declaration should be published everywhere, and
carried into effect so far as was possible without a breach
of the peace. Lecturers devoted to the Presbyterian system
were appointed side by side with the parochial clergy who
adhered to Anglicanism. The idea was--and it was at the
moment recommended by political considerations--to approach
as nearly as was possible without much ado to the Scottish
system.
No doubt the Presbyterians far and wide in the country
were well inclined to assist: but they were by no means
so strong in England as in Scotland; the Episcopal Church
had struck deep root in England. Men would endure no
alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, which had so long
formed the basis of their domestic and public devotions:
they had already grown used to the altars, and liked the
dignity of the restored ceremonial: nor were they willing
to be deprived of the bishops, who were popular in many
quarters, especially as they were likely to be easier [A.D. 1641.]
to keep in order than the many thousands of lay elders to
be substituted for them. Here and there tumultuous scenes
took place in the churches where attempts were made to give
effect to the orders of Parliament: elsewhere the people
declared against the decrees of the Synod of Dort, for the
doctrines of Laud’s system were of an Arminian character:
in a great number of counties petitions were circulated for
the maintenance of that episcopal constitution which had
been inherited from the earliest times. Bishop Williams of
Lincoln, who during these months made a personal visitation
of his large diocese, called to remembrance the services of
the bishops in heading the resistance to the aggressions of
Rome: he declared it to be a conscientious duty to abide by
the arrangements made by their forefathers, so long as they
were not legally repealed: no one, he said, should be led
astray after the idol of imaginary freedom, for there would
be so many masters that all the rest would be slaves[277].
Williams had belonged to the foremost opponents of Laud
and his regulations: but zealous as he was in resistance
to Laud, he was equally free from all Puritan and Scottish
predilections. He refused to designate the Scots as loyal
subjects, as was expected of him in the thanksgiving
service for the restoration of peace with Scotland: he was
willing to allow a limitation of the prelates’ authority,
but insisted on the maintenance of their dignity, and
of the forms of church government. He offered direct
opposition to the orders of the Lower House and its
commission, to the extent of declaring that all who should
follow them would deserve punishment.
Among the most important members of the Lower House itself
several seceded on these questions from the prevailing
party. Edward Hyde, who had taken the most active part in
the judicial reforms, was nevertheless far from sharing
the systematic hostility to the constitution of the Church
which most of the lawyers then evinced. He had known Laud
well in earlier times, and was fully aware that he was [A.D. 1641.]
often blamed for what was not his fault: the errors of the
past arose, he thought, from carrying things to excess,
but the church system itself he regarded as defensible and
useful. Contrary to expectation, Lord Falkland adopted
the same line: he did not deny to his old friend Hampden
that he had informed himself better, and changed his
opinion. John Colepepper, the man in the whole assembly
best qualified to sum up a debate, declared himself of the
same mind, though religious principles did not to him form
the ruling motive of life. Yet without this a man might
well turn aside from the goal which the majority were
striving to reach: he might perceive that the attempt to
impose on England the Scottish system was contrary to the
spirit of the English, and could never be accomplished, and
might well shrink from the state of chaos which might be
foreseen. He might also see in an alliance with the King
the best course for the country, and security for his own
future. Perhaps it was a question as little of high moral
resolve as of shameful desertion; it was a peculiar line
of statesmanlike policy which these men had traced out for
themselves.
Circumstances were not such as to allow of a return to
the tendencies of the old régime: these had become for
ever impossible--there were no more royalists on principle
of Strafford’s type: new foundations of parliamentary
government had been laid and recognised by the King. The
immediate political question was, whether now to restore
the old equilibrium of forces, and maintain the Established
Church, or to proceed further in the destruction of
existing institutions. The first was the policy of the men
who now separated from their former friends, the leaders of
the Parliamentary majority.
We find that other districts also took offence at the last
steps taken before the recess, which were regarded as
illegal, and lost confidence in the Parliament[278]. In
London placards were posted in public places, in which the [A.D. 1641.]
authors of these resolutions were denounced as traitors to
the King and the nation, enemies of God and of the public
weal: they had conspired with the Scots against England;
if Parliament would not expel them, vengeance should be
taken on them by open force. The magistrates and well-to-do
classes in the capital gave unequivocal proofs of their
sympathy with the King’s cause at this stage.
Thus there appeared manifold and strong leanings against
the party which hitherto had been successful, of an
ecclesiastical, a constitutional, and a popular nature. If
now the King returned, without having to fear any hostility
from Scotland, and succeeded in enforcing his views as to
the suppression of the Irish rebellion, he might hope, with
the support of this movement, to resume his throne with a
moderate but still real authority[279].
Necessarily however these events and possibilities aroused
the zeal of the leaders on the other side. They knew
perfectly well that the King was hoping by his conduct in
Scotland to strengthen himself for resistance in England.
The news of the supposed attempt to murder Hamilton and
Argyle produced a great effect: it was assumed that
something similar might be repeated in England. The Lords
held frequent meetings, sometimes at Northumberland’s
house, sometimes at Lord Mandeville’s, sometimes at
Lord Holland’s in Kensington, in order to come to an
understanding on the next measures to be adopted. There
was incessant talk of Popish plots and desperate attempts;
or fear was entertained that the Queen meant to depart,
in order to increase the confusion and bring foreign help
into England. To interrupt her connexion with the enemies
of Parliament at home, a demand was put forward that at any
rate she should not have English confessors; against French
there was nothing to be said. The apprehension was loudly
expressed that a thorough reaction was impending, which
would reverse all that had yet been conceded, and threaten
the utmost danger to the Parliamentary leaders.
In the midst of these contrary agitations Parliament [A.D. 1641.]
assembled again on the appointed day, at first not in much
greater numbers than before the recess: but a decided
opposition to the dominant party showed itself immediately.
When, among other things, the disobedience to the last
declaration of Parliament was mentioned, and proposals made
for punishing it, nothing could be carried, as the majority
held the declaration itself to have been unlawful[280].
When the House filled the hope might be entertained of
achieving, in parliamentary fashion, a reversal of the
majority, and a reaction in conformity with the views of
the moderate party, who had been drawing near to the King.
It was mainly in order to counteract this intention that
Pym and his friends proceeded with the Grand Remonstrance,
which in more than two hundred clauses enumerated the
grievances which the King’s government had occasioned since
its commencement[281]. It is, we may say, a kind of history
of the administration: for this estimate of it, though
often disputed and generally rejected, has in later times
again obtained acceptance through the advocacy of some able
writers. It is a narrative of the foregoing events for the
purpose of inculpating the royalists and justifying their
opponents. For the latter were beginning to feel that the
general opinion was setting against them, seeking, so
they complain, to reverse what they had done, and hinder
what was still contemplated. The Remonstrance is a party
manifesto, containing at once a defence of the past and
a programme for the future. Above all it was intended to
represent the steps which its framers still purposed to
take, as being the necessary consequences of those which
Parliament had taken from the very beginning.
As in April and November 1640 John Pym had referred all the
evils in England to an intention of changing the religion
and the government, so now in the Remonstrance proof
had to be given that the King had been from the first, [A.D. 1641.]
and still was, ruled by a Jesuitical faction. The
dissolution of previous Parliaments, the war with France
and its disastrous result, the increase of the spiritual
power--for Episcopalians, Arminians, even Libertines,
were all represented as in league with the Papists--the
opposition which many good laws had met with in the Upper
House--all was deduced from the same source. Just then
was published the news of the rising in Ireland and of
the cruelties perpetrated there. It made naturally a very
great impression, and was regarded as a confirmation of the
general complaints. There was no idea of other influences,
or of the effect which the harsh behaviour of Parliament
itself had had on the course of events: it was more than
ever regarded as the chief merit of Parliament that it had
opposed and checked Popish tendencies. And still the same
danger was threatening: for the future the same determined
resistance was necessary, and the only hope of rescue lay
in Parliament. There was no doubt of the good-will and
firmness of the Lower House: but this would avail little if
met in the Upper House by the hostility of the bishops and
lords inclined to Catholicism. Thus the way was paved for a
return to the earlier projects of a thorough ecclesiastical
reform. From the imminent danger in which the country was,
and which had one of its sources in the ecclesiastical
constitution, was deduced the necessity of transforming the
latter. ‘We admit that our design is to put an end to the
excessive power of the prelates, and deprive them of their
temporal dignities and offices.’ It was proposed to call
a general synod of the chief theologians of the island,
that is to say including the Scots, with the assistance of
some foreigners, for the purpose of taking counsel on the
good government of the Church, their conclusions to be then
carried into effect by Parliament. A standing commission of
members of Parliament was demanded, to present systematic
opposition to Popish aggressions, and to watch over the
observance of the laws against Papists. Then came the
demands long before announced, and now more strongly urged
in consequence of the concessions made to the Scots, that
the King should admit to the chief offices, in relation to
foreign as well as domestic affairs, only persons in whom [A.D. 1641.]
the Parliament could confide: otherwise, it was
unreservedly stated, they could grant no more subsidies.
These were the two great demands at which the earlier
negotiations had stopped, the abolition of episcopacy, and
the appointment of high officials subject to the approval
of Parliament: they were now discussed in connexion with
each other. The Remonstrance contained more than a mere
statement of grievances: if the Lower House adopted it, it
at once made these demands definitely its own, and resolved
to carry them. It thereby returned to tendencies which had
formerly been dominant but recently had become dubious, and
adopted the watchword under which the Scots had broken down
the preponderance of the crown.
We must observe that the Remonstrance had also a certain
connexion with foreign affairs. The Queen had expected
much from the arrival of the new French ambassador La
Ferté Imbault. In June 1641 he appeared, bringing her
assurances of friendship from the King of France and
Cardinal Richelieu, which pleased her greatly. La Ferté
followed nevertheless in the footsteps of Bellièvre: he
connected himself with Lord Holland, who, without being
himself conspicuous in Parliament, exercised some influence
over the direction and management of affairs[282]. He was
present when the lords of the minority met at Holland
House, and did not hesitate to maintain also an intimate
connexion with the members of the Lower House: he kept
company with them, though far below him in rank according
to the social ideas of the age[283]. He assured the Queen
that these alliances would give him power to serve her; and
she declared herself satisfied: she seems at the least to
have reckoned that the influence of the ambassador would
check the violence of hatred against her, but in fact
he entered into close confederation with her opponents. [A.D. 1641.]
The Queen was most anxious to support her Catholic
co-religionists: the ambassador found that they were as a
body inclined to Spain[284], and in consequence did little
or nothing for them.
On the other hand the leading men in Parliament were
enemies of Spain. The idea had dawned upon them of making
a new attempt on the West Indies, hostile to that power:
the English sailors and soldiers in the Spanish service
were summoned to quit it under heavy penalties. Hence the
French ambassador was their ally. One day he made an offer
to the King of French assistance in Ireland, but this
was not done without a previous understanding with his
friends in Parliament, who approved because the insurgents
represented the Spanish and Catholic interest. Both parties
thought that the King favoured Spain and the Catholics:
just at the moment they were afraid, in consequence of the
presence of an imperial plenipotentiary, of the renewal of
an understanding between England and Spain, in which the
Netherlands should participate; the members promised the
ambassador to try and induce the King to break with Spain,
and conclude at last the often talked of alliance with
France[285].
In the Remonstrance were described the counsellors whom
the King was not to endure: these were not merely those to
whom actual crimes could be imputed, but also favourers
of Popery, friends of foreign powers of other creeds, all
who spoke contemptuously of Parliament, or sheltered great
offenders. So ran the official document. In the speeches
however the offensive persons were actually named; the
chief of them were Bristol and his son Digby, as they
themselves well knew. The same men were also regarded,
and doubtless rightly, as supporters of the leanings
towards Spain; they were said to be forming a new Spanish
cabal[286]. The Remonstrance contained almost a personal
vote of want of confidence against them.
The one decisive question with relation to all matters [A.D. 1641.]
both domestic and foreign was now whether the Remonstrance
would obtain a majority in the Lower House or not. On this
it depended whether England would maintain the regal and
parliamentary forms after the ancient fashion, together
with episcopacy and substantial power vested in the
crown, or whether it would change to the system adopted
in Scotland, and unite with Presbyterianism the complete
preponderance of Parliament. Existing circumstances, old
associations, the intuitive and habitual inclination of
the people, pointed to the one: the great agitation of the
last year, the attempt once undertaken, urged men strongly
towards the other. The clauses of the Remonstrance were
first discussed singly, and one or two were opposed, but
without any practical result. The final debate took place
on November 22. Its importance is illustrated by the words
of Oliver Cromwell, that on its issue depended the question
whether or not he could stay in England. Only if the
majority accepted the Remonstrance could he see any future
for himself in England. Many others held similar opinions.
The rejection of the Remonstrance would have driven to
America the champions of the ideas expressed in it.
Edward Hyde opened the debate by declaring a phrase in
the Remonstrance inconsistent with the King’s dignity: he
added the remark that the defence of their liberties was
not opposed to the existence of the crown. ‘We will not be
subjects of a contemptible king, any more than he be king
of contemptible subjects.’ Lord Falkland approached more
nearly to the questions at issue. He specially defended the
bishops, who were unfairly accused of Popish tendencies,
and even charged with having promoted idolatry. Then he
referred to the proposal that the King’s nominations
should be subject to the approval of Parliament, which
he characterised as impracticable and ludicrous. Edmund
Waller, who had already broken several lances with Pym,
added that in this he was going against the laws: for that
the Lower House was chosen by the freeholders to make the
laws, not to see that the King’s counsellors were appointed
according to their pleasure. Edward Dering asserted that [A.D. 1641.]
the wishes of the people had now been satisfied, and that
they desired no accusations for the past, nor yet promises
for the future, such as the Remonstrance contained. John
Colepepper declared that they had no right, without the
concurrence of the Lords, to publish this Remonstrance, for
that the Lower House was chosen to transact business with
the King and the Lords, not to issue declarations to the
people; moreover that the hostility of the people would
very soon be shown if they meddled with episcopacy.
Pym and Hampden took the chief part in defending the
Remonstrance. Pym justified the harsh expressions against
the bishops, on the ground that the reverence paid to the
altars was in fact idolatrous, and the pretension in regard
to the King’s advisers, on the ground that the wicked
designs against which they had had to fight originated in
the immediate neighbourhood of the King. He said that the
heart of the people would be won when they ascertained how
the Lower House was treated: as for seeking the assent
of the Lords to the Remonstrance, it was a contradiction
in terms, as it contained complaints against the Lords
themselves. Hampden declared that they were only doing
what was natural; the Lower House had been loaded with
reproaches, and these they repelled: evil counsellors were
close at hand and very powerful, and these they exposed.
The attacks made on their new church policy he retorted
with a text from the Apocalypse predicting the victory of
the true church, and the fall of all other worship[287].
Thus reasons and counter-reasons were urged without any
one being able clearly to pronounce in which way the scale
inclined. At last the opponents of the Remonstrance must
have begun to fear that they should be in the minority:
they determined to resist as long as possible, and if that
failed, to proceed to a protest. It was midnight before
they could come to a decision. It was resolved first of all
to settle the text of the Remonstrance, and then take the [A.D. 1641.]
final vote: at last the question was put whether the
Remonstrance as amended be agreed to or not. On this the
House divided; the votes in its favour were 159, those
against it 148. It had passed by a majority of eleven.
Still the affair was not ended. A new agitation was aroused
by the motion that the Remonstrance should forthwith be
printed. The royalist party thought this unendurable, as
setting this document before the populace would be an
act of hostility against the King. Edward Hyde declared
that the House had no authority to do it without having
consulted with the Lords: he added that if it passed he
should pray for leave to enter his protest. His cautious
expression shows that he regarded the right as dubious. But
a step was taken which rendered an immediate demonstration
possible. Geoffrey Palmer, a lawyer, rose to ask for the
appointment of a day on which the right to a protest might
be enquired into: meanwhile the names might be taken of
those who would sign such a protest in case of its being
pronounced legal. He seemed to ask who was prepared for
this; a great crowd rose to their feet, with the cry ‘All,
all.’ Was not this however in fact a protest, in spite
of the doubtful legality? Inevitably it excited immense
agitation. The steadfast zeal of the one party balanced
the enthusiasm of the other. They waved their hats above
their heads, knocked on the ground with their swords; it
seemed as if they must come to hand-to-hand fighting. As
they sat or stood opposite each other they felt that they
could plunge their weapons into one another’s bodies, like
Abner’s and Joab’s young men at Hilkath Hazzurim. In that
narrow, crowded, dimly lighted room of the chapel, men felt
almost as in the valley of the shadow of death[288]. A few
conciliatory words from Hampden availed to recall them
to their senses. The proposed resolution was in fact not
put. Without bloodshed, but in the utmost excitement, they
separated late at night.
Geoffrey Palmer had to atone for his conduct by a couple [A.D. 1641.]
of days’ imprisonment in the Tower. But the question he
had raised, how far a protest of dissentient members was
allowable in the Lower House, was of so great importance,
that when once it had been spoken of it must necessarily be
settled.
The right of protest existed in the House of Lords, in the
Scottish Parliament, in the Legislative Assemblies of the
Continent: the very name of the religion acknowledged in
England was derived from a protest offered in the German
Diet. Why should there be no power of exercising it in
the English Lower House? There was no precedent for it,
but there was none against it: and how many things were
then done for the first time. Two reasons were urged for
the right of protest, which rest on the inmost sense of
individuality: one is that the individual cannot possibly
be compelled to assent to the majority if it adopts illegal
or irreligious measures: the other is that otherwise in
case of a revolution, the innocent would have to suffer
with the guilty. It is obvious that these reasons could
not prevail with a majority which was in possession of the
right to pass universally binding resolutions. The majority
argued that the ancient formulae cut off the possibility
of a declaration of dissent. John Pym stated on this
side a reason of great significance. The Lords, said he,
are in the Upper House in virtue of their individual and
personal rights: every man acts for himself, so that he is
not unconditionally bound by the majority. But the case
is quite different with the Lower House, which represents
the nation: there no dissent is allowable. He assumed that
the united will of the nation was expressed through the
majority of the members of the Lower House elected by it.
That a national assembly represents the nation, had very
often been said: but that is very far from the view that
this representation belongs to the Lower House, an idea
on which is based the legality of all revolution. It very
naturally originated with the leader accustomed to be
followed by a majority which he had himself done most to
form: in its assent he read the assent of the nation.
Apart from the essential importance of the principles [A.D. 1641.]
involved, the fact that the resolution was passed, and that
under no circumstances durst members of the Lower House
enter a protest, had great importance for the moment. The
whole authority which the conclusions of the Lower House
possessed with the nation went in favour of the proposals
against the bishops and for the termination of the King’s
power of nomination, which had passed on the night of
November 22 by so narrow majority.
FOOTNOTES:
[274] Giustiniano, 20/30 Aug. ‘Tulto opera al presente
la camera bassa, anzi quei soli che si professano pin
interessati nelle passate deliberationi, et che vestite con
il manto del zelo del ben publico le loro private cupidità,
hanno pin degli altri offeso questo principe.’
[275] ‘Never imagining,’ says Roger Twysden of his share in
the elections, ‘that Parlyament would have tooke upon them
the redressing things amiss, by a way not traced out unto
them by their auncestors.’ Kemble’s preface to Twysden’s
Certaine considerations upon the government of England xxii.
[276] Giustiniano. ‘Avendo apportato querele alle sue
communita, che in parlamento tutto sia retto con il solo
arbitrio di alcuni pochi, i quali arditamente prese in
mano le redini del governo, abbiano impedito agli altri di
dichiarare a beneficio commune i sentimenti suoi,--che la
liberta della lingua non habbia havuto quel luoco che è di
dovere.’
[277] Hacket’s Life of Williams ii. 165. He was especially
blamed for the words, ‘that no power could protect against
statutes still in force.’
[278] Ed. Nicholas to the King, 27th September: ‘The
late crosse orders and unusuall passages in Parliament a
little before the recess are so distasteful to the wiser
sort, as it hath taken off the edge of their confidence in
parliamentary proceedings.’ (Evelyn’s Diary iv. 75.)
[279] Giustiniano, 18 Oct.: ‘Universalmente palesa ogn’ uno
discontento dei tentativi del parlamento, onde puo credersi
che a nuova ridutione si procedera con maggior moderatione
e saranno rette le deliberationi dell’ acconsentimento di
tutti, non dalla sola passione di pochi.’
[280] ‘There was no way found or resolved on to punish
those that disobeyed the same (order of the House).’
Nicholas to the King, 21st October.
[281] A remonstrance of the state of the kingdom, presented
to the King at Hampton Court, 1st Dec. 1641, in the name of
the Commons’ House of Parliament. Rushworth iv. 438.
[282] La Ferté, 1/10 Oct. ‘Il a grand credit en Angleterre,
et sa caballe, qui est grande, donnera un grand branle aux
affaires.’ 16/26 Dec. ‘Le comte d’Holland est toujours très
puissant au parlement et très mal a la cour.’
[283] So the Queen declared later. ‘Le Sr. La Ferté avoit
commerce particulier avec les parlementaires, même avec
personnes de la plus basse condition, qu’il visitoit très
soigneusement.’
[284] La Ferté, 31st Oct.: ‘La plupart des Catholiques sont
Espagnols.’
[285] From La Ferté’s despatch of 7th Nov. ‘Les plus
puissants du parlement luy ont dit, qu’ils étoient resolus
de luy parler (au roi d’Angleterre) pour renouveller
l’alliance de France, s’unir avec elle, et rompre avec la
maison d’Autriche.’
[286] 10th Oct. ‘On a découvert depuis peu, que les
partisans d’Espagne faisoient une nouvelle (cabale).
Ceux du parlement, qui en ont advis (through Holland)
travailleront, aussitôt que le parlement se rassemble,
d’eloigner ces personnes la.’
[287] ‘When the woman shall be clothed with the sun, the
moon shall be under her feet.’ Verney’s Notes contain the
most important particulars of this transaction. Cp. Forster
100.
[288] Warwick, Memoirs 202. Notices from D’Ewes’ Diary in
Forster’s Historical Essays i. 112. The Camden Society
should earn the credit of printing this diary _in extenso_.