FORMATION OF A NEW MINISTRY. TUMULTUOUS AGITATION IN THE
CAPITAL.
The King was and remained determined to give way on neither
point: while the anti-episcopalian tendencies were gaining
the upper hand in the Commons, he had in a measure newly
constituted the episcopal bench. The vacant sees, of which
there was a great number, he filled without any limitation
of their authority: in order to give proof of his genuine
Protestant sentiments, he chose learned men of moderate
views. Dr. Prideaux, one of the best professors at Oxford,
a scholar and logician, and possessed of the most extensive
theological learning, obtained the bishopric of Worcester.
Dr. Brownrigge, a Cambridge Fellow, and possessing the
sort of intellect at once solid and versatile, which is
calculated to shine in public discussions, received the
see of Exeter; Westfield, a popular preacher, that of
Bristol. Bishop Hall, whose moderation had brought him
under suspicion of being inclined to Presbyterianism,
was advanced to the bishopric of Norwich; and Bishop
Williams of Lincoln, who at the moment had developed a rare
episcopal activity, to the archbishopric of York. Thus it
was not the adherents of the Canterbury system, the old
friends of Laud, who obtained the preference. The King
wished to give the Church representatives free from all
suspicion of a leaning towards Catholicism; and by this he
caused the most thorough satisfaction to all the friends of
the Church.
On November 25, the third day after that stormy sitting,
he returned to London: once more he was welcomed with
joyful sympathy, and as heartily as he could wish. The [A.D. 1641.]
Recorder, in the name of the city, expressed confidence
that he would defend the established religion: the King
answered that he would prove his love to the people by
maintaining intact the laws of the realm and of religion,
as they had stood under his father and Queen Elizabeth--as
if with a presentiment of the coming storm, he added, even
at the risk of his life and all that was dear to him[289].
He had just confirmed the city in its rights, and restored
the possessions in Ireland which had been taken away under
Strafford. To prove their gratitude the magistrates had
invited him to a banquet in Guildhall. On the way thither,
as well as in going thence by torchlight to Whitehall,
he was greeted with triumphant shouts. He derived thence
a conviction that he would have the general voice in
his favour if it came to open war between him and the
Parliament: and that war was imminent no one could doubt.
On December 1 the Remonstrance was presented to the King
at Hampton Court, by a deputation of the Commons. It was
accompanied by a petition, in which the two chief demands,
on which all the rest depended, were repeated in strong
terms--that he would deprive the bishops of their temporal
authority, and moderate their spiritual power so far that
all oppression in doctrine, government and discipline
should cease--that he would banish the malignants from his
council, and admit no influence from the opposite side,
however near or high the quarter from which it came. The
request was appended that the King would not restore to
the rebels their forfeited possessions in England, but
keep them for the public service. At this and some other
points the King let an exclamation of ironical astonishment
or disapproval escape him; at the rest he exhibited
neither anger nor annoyance, he only expressed the wish
that the Remonstrance should not be published without his
concurrence.
He had undoubtedly however resolved to resist with all
his might the purposes disclosed in it. On the day after
the presentation of the petition he showed this by a [A.D. 1641.]
proclamation which, in opposition to the ordinance of the
Parliamentary commission, forbade all deviation from the
Book of Common Prayer. In relation to the other disputed
question he acted in the same manner as in reference to
spiritual affairs. It had hitherto remained doubtful on
what principle the highest posts not yet disposed of should
be filled up: in the last few months there had been again
a talk of introducing men like Hollis and Pym into the
highest ranks of the administration[290]. Even for the
household posts there were candidates who reckoned on the
support of Parliament. When however the opposition, which
it was hoped had been lulled, again exhibited itself in
so direct and implacable a form, the King would no longer
think of any such approximation, as it would in fact have
been endorsing the claims of the Commons. The dignity of
Lord Steward, to which the Lower House wished to see the
Earl of Pembroke appointed, was conferred by Charles on
James Stuart, Duke of Lennox and Richmond, who, like his
ancestors, was in the confidence of the royal family. Just
as little was he disposed to entrust the office of Lord
Treasurer to the Earl of Salisbury, the son of Robert
Cecil: he named as Chancellor of the Exchequer, John
Colepepper, one of the leaders of the minority. The two
Vanes lost their posts, the elder to his bitter chagrin
the Secretaryship of State, in which he had grown grey;
and Lord Falkland was induced to undertake it. Edward
Hyde as yet received no office, though he took part in
all deliberations: he busied himself in answering the
Remonstrance which he had so vainly resisted at the time.
But the soul of the ministry was Lord Digby, another
of Charles I’s advisers who came over to him from the
opposition. The Queen asserted that she had by her personal
intervention induced him to change sides. After he had,
in the debate on the Bill of Attainder, broken with the
majority in the Commons, which threatened to make him
answer for his language, he was transferred to the Upper
House, and obtained a post about the King’s person. He was
a man of universal culture, who had seen many countries,
and possessed very varied knowledge, amiable when he liked, [A.D. 1641.]
and spirited, at once versatile and resolute. His speeches
are favourably distinguished by good taste and happy
expression from the style of his contemporaries: in the
history of parliamentary eloquence he deserves a place.
He found his chief support in his father, Lord Bristol,
the only one of those who had been admitted into the
council at the beginning of the year who exerted any real
influence. Charles I once more selected from Parliament an
enemy of Buckingham, whom he had attacked with the help of
Parliament in former times. Now however their sentiments
were no longer those prevalent in Parliament: both father
and son had become favourable to Spain and to royalty.
Regarded in the light of later events it may seem strange
that the King should have chosen his ministers from the
minority and not from the majority. At the moment however
the prospect was adverse to the demands of Parliament:
while the King was sure of a large minority in the Lower
House, of a majority in the Lords, of the great episcopal
interest, and of a favourable sentiment among the people,
he thought that he need not fear a hostile majority. The
Queen in the course of December believed that her party
would supplant, conquer, and punish the opposition.
The French ambassador distinguished between the Spanish
cabal, and the other which consisted of his friends. ‘Each
of them,’ said he, at the beginning of December, ‘does
all it can to ruin the other. The Spanish party has been
strengthened by the arrival of the King; he has a great
idea of the strength of his adherents in both houses, and
hopes with their aid to be able to restore his authority.’
In Parliament there grew up against Bristol and Digby a
hatred similar to that which had once been felt against
Strafford: on the other hand Holland, Essex, Say, Hertford,
saw themselves threatened in their offices by the court
party. It was still very doubtful which side would remain
masters of the field: meanwhile the leaders of the Commons
had reason to fear for their lives.
When the nature of the opposing principles and the strength
of the parties embodying them were such as to produce a
sort of equilibrium, or state of suspense, a change in the
municipal representation in London, which went in favour of
the revolutionary cause, was of all the greater moment.
Although Episcopacy was liked by the magistrates and [A.D. 1641.]
wealthy classes, Presbyterian opinions preponderated
on the whole, and decidedly so in the middle and lower
classes. The zealous and well-attended sermons, in which
religious exhortation bore also a political character,
contributed greatly to this. How great must have been the
confusion when the deviations from Anglican usage which had
been introduced under the protection of Parliament, were
pronounced invalid, and had to be abandoned[291]. It is
very intelligible that the declaration of the Lord Mayor
and Aldermen in favour of the bishops should have been met
by counter manifestations on the part of the commonalty.
At the beginning of December a petition was prepared in
the city, and accepted in spite of the opposition of the
Lord Mayor, in which the city adhered to the views of the
majority in the Lower House, and fully adopted as its own
the idea already prevalent there, of excluding the popish
lords and the bishops from the Upper House. The great
contest on the relations of Church and State which divided
the nation was first fought out in the city of London. A
considerable part of the public authority was here in the
hands of the Common Council: those elected to a seat there
had come to enjoy almost a personal life-long right, and
it was the first step to the magisterial bench. Hitherto
men of moderate opinions, such as had been expressed on
the occasion of the King’s return, had had the upper hand
there: now however the city populace found them not zealous
enough for religion, and too much inclined to make terms
with the court. Their chief crime was intending to petition
in favour of Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer. At
the new elections, which took place at this time in the
various parishes and wards, a sudden change was made. The
adherents of the government and of the bishops, such as
Benyon and Drake, were rejected, and zealous Presbyterians
were elected instead, though they might be less wealthy:
many belonged to the class of artisans[292].
The King had originally intended, since he did not fully [A.D. 1641.]
trust the temper of London, to spend the winter at Hampton
Court: he was induced by the good reception he met with
at the city, and by the assurances of the authorities, to
promise that he would spend Christmas at Westminster[293].
Thus he was very closely affected by this change.
In the city there appeared an ever-rising ferment. If
anything in the world was calculated to rouse their
passions it was the horrible violence committed against
the Protestants in Ireland: this must necessarily have
awakened Protestant fellow-feeling. They were ready to
contribute towards the Irish war; even in the Common
Council numerous subscriptions were offered: but at the
same time they demanded security for the good management
of the undertaking, and the most rigorous execution of the
penal laws. It almost seemed as if they had to fear, from
the system of government, similar terrible consequences in
England: the outbreak of a fire in their neighbour’s house
made them fear for their own. Then came the publication of
the Remonstrance, which was printed in spite of the King’s
request and the opposition of the minority. It appeared
palpable that the King was ruled by Popish influence. We
have political ballads extant in which the alliance of the
bishops and the Papists is depicted as the great danger of
the country and of religion. But there are, it is added,
courageous hearts ready for resistance; the best of the
King’s subjects are prepared to do what will break the yoke
of Antichrist, and to gain for England the liberties which
Scotland has secured.
A fast-day was held on December 22. In a letter of this
day it is said that extraordinary devotions are necessary
to implore the grace of God for the averting of the storms
which are breaking over the country; he may deem himself
happiest who has least to do with it.
During this general uneasiness the King issued an order [A.D. 1641.]
which was exactly calculated to cause a complete outbreak.
As a part of the system already adopted, of substituting
for men of popular opinions and connexions, who held any
important post, others of greater inclination towards the
King’s service, William Balfour, a Scot, the Constable
Lieutenant of the Tower, the same who had refused to allow
the introduction of a small force, was dismissed from
his office, and replaced by a friend of Digby’s, named
Lunsford, a soldier by profession, who had served in the
northern army. But he was regarded as one of the most
dangerous of the malignants: he was said never to have
been seen in a church, to be violent and dishonourable,
laden with debt, and capable of any desperate resolve. His
appointment made the worst possible impression on the city,
which would not see a portion of its wealth, the gold and
silver bullion in the Tower, left in such untrustworthy
hands. The Lower House thought they saw in it the beginning
of a violent reaction, and requested the Lords to unite
with them in praying for the revocation of the appointment.
Though the Upper House declared, in reply, that the
appointment and removal of officers belonged to the royal
prerogative, with which they had no right to interfere, the
Commons proceeded to resolve that Lunsford was unfitted
for the place, ‘as a person in whom the Commons of England
cannot confide[294];’ and since the Upper House was only
prevented from concurring by the votes of the bishops,
they begged the members of that House who were of their
opinion to act as men of honour. This message was received
by the Lords on December 24: the majority was in favour of
postponing the matter to the first sitting after Christmas,
on the 27th. But at this moment the minority took the step
which Pym had long ago recommended to them: twenty-two
Lords protested against this postponement, saying that they
would accept no responsibility for the evil consequences
which might ensue[295].
Thus the Christmas which Charles I had thought to keep
in the old cheerful fashion, and the following Sunday, [A.D. 1641.]
were filled with anxiety, mutual accusations, profound
and violent agitation. The apprentices at that time
formed a peculiar element of popular movements in London:
since the trade ordinances of Queen Elizabeth, which were
directed to an easier administration of the poor-law, they
had been compelled to serve a long period in shops and
manufactories: though still dependent on their masters,
they had with growing years the appearance, and even the
feeling, of a sort of independence, and were specially apt
at popular demonstrations. At this moment their masters,
who were agreed with the Parliament, left them to their
own devices: they prepared to go to Westminster on the
following Monday, armed with swords and pistols, chiefly to
enforce the dismissal of the hated Lunsford[296].
The King on the Sunday conferred with the Lord Mayor, who
declared himself powerless to check the movement: the
only resource seemed to be the withdrawal of Lunsford’s
appointment; and at the Lord Mayor’s advice the King
resolved to do this. In Lunsford’s place he selected John
Byron, who also enjoyed his full confidence, without giving
occasion for such demonstrations as had been made against
the other.
The movement was however not to be stopped thus: on the
appointed day, about the hour at which the morning sitting
began, a tumultuous mob streamed into Westminster. There
they came to blows with Lunsford and his armed followers,
who were on the spot: but the demonstration told less
against him than against those members of the Upper House
who had refused to accede to the popular demand, namely the
bishops. They were received with the cry that they could
be endured no longer, at any rate in Parliament, and with
insulting clamour: woe betide him who, like Archbishop
Williams, desired to obtain justice personally against any
one in the mob: he received double abuse. The hearts of [A.D. 1641.]
some of the temporal lords smote them at this: they
remembered their old-fashioned knightly pledge, which bound
them to defend with their swords men in long garments. The
Lords actually went to the Lower House with a prayer to
this effect: the answer was that they could not discourage
the people.
The next day these scenes were repeated: the barges
in which some bishops sought to reach the Upper House
were met with showers of stones, and driven back from
the landing-place. It seemed that the prelates would be
excluded from the house by open force: but they themselves
furnished a pretext for this being done legally. In order
to avoid any further insult, and yet not to surrender their
ancient rights, Archbishop Williams hit on the idea of
assisting their cause by a protest: he assembled eleven
bishops, and induced them to sign an instrument in which
they pronounced beforehand all proceedings null and void
which should be taken during their enforced absence from
Parliament. They laid this declaration before the King and
before the Upper House, which communicated it to the Lower.
This step however produced a totally different effect from
what was intended. The Commons had a different idea of the
English constitution from this meeting of bishops: it was
observed that the bishops did not in England constitute
an order whose absence would render parliamentary action
invalid: their pretensions were declared to be an attack
on the fundamental laws of Parliament and on its very
existence: the Lower House impeached the bishops of high
treason for making them. They had to kneel at the bar of
the Upper House and hear the impeachment read, much to
their astonishment, for they had had no thought of doing
anything improper: they were sent to the Tower, or at any
rate arrested. Thus the Commons were suddenly relieved of
these unwelcome sharers in the counsels of Parliament:
and in order to seize the favourable moment, a motion was
immediately made for their definitive exclusion from all
political affairs, nor under existing circumstances was
there much doubt of its being passed.
It is obvious how greatly the movement in the city helped
the Puritan party in the House of Commons, which was led
by Pym and Hampden: for it must be reckoned as at least [A.D. 1641.]
an indirect result of the tumult, that the bishops, who
sought to maintain their rights in the face of it, were,
perhaps in rather a clumsy manner, removed from the Upper
House. This party united to consistency in their demands
the skill to take advantage of every error or display of
weakness on the part of their opponents. From a somewhat
depressed position at the beginning of the session they
had, within two months, worked their way up to predominant
authority.
Nothing was wanting to their full possession of power
except control over the court and the King’s counsellors.
The obvious and immediate aim in all movements of this
sort is always a change of the persons who wield executive
power, or share the secrets of its deliberations. No one
at this time possessed so much influence in both domestic
and foreign affairs as the hated Lords Bristol and Digby,
father and son. The French ambassador, who hated them as
the heads of the Spanish faction, once talked with his
friends in Parliament of the necessity for overthrowing
them: he asserted that they swore to him to undertake the
attack, even though they should perish in it. So it came
to pass that formal impeachments against Digby and Bristol
were proposed in the Lower House: the father for having
advised the King to put the army into effective condition,
which could only have been done with views hostile to
Parliament: the son for having accused the Commons of
encroachments on the liberties of the Lords, and on the
rights of subjects, and for having said that Parliament was
no longer free. The Lower House had this claim at any rate
to supreme power, that it already treated as a crime every
expression injurious to it. The matter advanced so far as a
conference with the Lords.
A very widely spread idea was to proceed with an
impeachment against the Queen, as the personage who gave
the most support to Catholic and anti-Parliamentary
tendencies.
The danger to the court arising from the influx of the
mob to Whitehall evoked counter demonstrations for its
protection. A number of officers were assembled, who had
served in the old army, or were going to Ireland. One
day the court gave them a banquet at Whitehall. Even
then the intrusion of the mob could only be repelled by [A.D. 1641.]
violence and even bloodshed[297]. The apprentices
threatened to come back and take vengeance. Hereupon guards
were posted in Scotland Yard, in Westminster Abbey, in the
great reception room at Whitehall. The younger members of
the gentry who were completing their studies in the Inns
of Court appeared at court, and offered their services.
They were admitted to kiss the hands of the Queen and
Prince. Never had more of the nobility been seen at court
than at this juncture: all were armed, and they went about
brandishing their swords, and showing the daggers with
which they would defend the King.
But the presence of a company of armed men aroused again in
Parliament the fear of an intention to disperse the Houses
by force. The Parliament on its side asked for a guard;
there was even a talk of transferring the sittings into the
city. A state of things had begun which must lead to some
violent explosion.
In the middle of December the French ambassador sent
information home that the court cabal, which he also
described as Spanish, which just then had hoped to triumph,
was become weaker than the other[298]. At the end of
December he added that affairs were in greater confusion
than ever, and that Parliament was in such a position that
the one cabal or the other must perish[299].
FOOTNOTES:
[289] ‘And this I will do, if need be, to the hazard of my
life and all that is dear unto me.’ Nalson Collection 676.
[290] Cp. Forster, Arrest of the five members 48, 54.
[291] Slingsby to Pennington, 16th December (St. P. O.).
[292] Clarendon iv. 372: ‘By the concurrence and number of
the meaner people men of the most active and pragmatical
heads should be elected.’ These events in the city would be
worth a searching investigation. Some information is given
by the (one must admit) party pamphlet of Samuel Butler, A
Letter from Mercurius Civicus, etc., in Someis’ Tracts iv.
584.
[293] So he himself told the aldermen. Nalson ii. 702.
[294] Journals 356.
[295] Parliamentary History x. 123.
[296] Giustiniani, 31 Dec/10 Jan. ‘Sciolto in freno
alia licenza proruppero in parole di molto senso
contra questa elettione non meno, che contra la camera
alta, si lasciarono intendere che publicarebbero al
popolo machinarsi a danni della libertà di lui, e lo
persuaderebbero prender l’armi per defenderla.’
[297] Aerssen: ‘Les prentices firent des grandes
insolences, même à Whitehall, le jour que le roi traitoit
les colonels et capitaines qui devoient aller en Irlande.’
He reckons some sixty wounded; La Ferté 20-30.
[298] 16/26 Dec. ‘La cabale d’Espagne et de la cour se fait
tous les jours plus faible que l’autre, qui commence à
prendre le dessus: et se forment diverses intrigues dans la
ville.’
[299] 31 Dec./9 Jan. ‘Les affaires n’ont jamais été si
brouillées, le parlement estant maintenant en état, que
l’une ou l’autre cabale perisse.’