Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared
and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King
Edward the First, commonly called, 'Statutum de Tallagio non
concedendo,' that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by
the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and
assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights,
Burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this
realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is
declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be
compelled to make any loans to the King against his will,
because such loans were against reason and the franchise of
the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that
none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a
Benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes
before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this
realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they
should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage,
aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in
Parliament: Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions
directed to sundry Commissioners in several counties with
instructions have issued, by means whereof your people have
been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain
sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their
refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them, not
warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm, and have
been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give
attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and
others of them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and
sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers other
charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several
counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants,
Commissioners for Musters, Justices of Peace and others, by
command or direction from your Majesty or your Privy Council,
against the laws and free customs of this realm: And where
also by the statute called, 'The Great Charter of the
Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no
freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his
freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or
exiled; or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment
of his peers, or by the law of the land: And in the eight and
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it was
declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man
of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of
his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor
disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer
by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of the
said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your
realm, to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of
late been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when for
their deliverance they were brought before your Justices, by
your Majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and
receive as the Court should order, and their keepers commanded
to certify the causes of their detainer; no cause was
certified, but that they were detained by your Majesty's
special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council,
and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being
charged with anything to which they might make answer
according to the law: And whereas of late great companies of
soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties
of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have
been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to
suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this
realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people:
And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year
of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and
enacted, that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb
against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the
land:
{849}
and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes
of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death; but
by the laws established in this your realm, either by the
customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament: and
whereas no offender of what kind soever is exempted from the
proceedings to be used, and punishments to be inflicted by the
laws and statutes of this your realm: nevertheless of late
divers commissions under your Majesty's Great Seal have issued
forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and
appointed Commissioners with power and authority to proceed
within the land, according to the justice of martial law
against such soldiers and mariners, or other dissolute persons
joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery,
felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever,
and by such summary course and order, as is agreeable to
martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, to proceed
to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to
cause to be executed and put to death, according to the law
martial: By pretext whereof, some of your Majesty's subjects
have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death, when
and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had
deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might,
and by no other ought to have been, adjudged and executed: And
also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an
exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the
laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of
your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused,
or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the
same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders
were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such
commissions as aforesaid, which commissions, and all other of
like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws
and statutes of this your realm: They do therefore humbly pray
your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be
compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax,
or such like charge, without common consent by Act of
Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take
such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise
molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal
thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is
before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your
Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and
mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time
to come; and that the foresaid commissions for proceeding by
martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter
no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or
persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by
colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or
put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent
Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws
and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also
vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings
to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall
not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that
your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further
comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will
and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers
and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and
statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your
Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom. [Which Petition
being read the 2nd of June 1628, the King's answer was thus
delivered unto it. The King willeth that right be done
according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the
statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may have
no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions, contrary to
their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof
he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative. On
June 7 the answer was given in the accustomed form, 'Soit
droit fait comme il est désiré.']"
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England,
chapter 63 (volume 6)._
_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
page 1._
_J. L. De Lolme,
The English Constitution,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
Assassination of Buckingham.
"While the struggle [over the Petition of Right] was going on,
the popular hatred of Buckingham [the King's favourite, whose
influence at court was supreme] showed itself in a brutal
manner. In the streets of London, the Duke's physician, Dr.
Lambe, was set upon by the mob, called witch, devil, and the
Duke's conjuror, and absolutely beaten to death. The Council
set inquiries on foot, but no individual was brought before
it, and the rhyme went from mouth to mouth--'Let Charles and
George do what they can, The Duke shall die like Doctor
Lambe.' ... Charles, shocked and grieved, took his friend in
his own coach through London to see the ten ships which were
being prepared at Deptford for the relief of Rochelle. It was
reported that he was heard to say, 'George, there are some
that wish that both these and thou might perish. But care not
thou for them. We will both perish together if thou dost.'
There must have been something strangely attractive about the
man who won and kept the hearts of four personages so
dissimilar as James and Charles of England, Anne of Austria,
and William Laud. ... In the meantime Rochelle held out." One
attempt to relieve the beleaguered town had failed. Buckingham
was to command in person the armament now in preparation for
another attempt. "The fleet was at Portsmouth, and Buckingham
went down thither in high spirits to take the command. The
King came down to Sir Daniel Norton's house at Southwick. On
the 23d of August Buckingham rose and 'cut a caper or two'
before the barber dealt with his moustache and lovelocks. Then
he was about to sit down to breakfast with a number of
captains, and as he rose he received letters which made him
believe that Rochelle had been relieved. He said he must tell
the King instantly, but Soubise and the other refugees did not
believe a word of it, and there was a good deal of disputing
and gesticulation between them. He crossed a lobby, followed
by the eager Frenchmen, and halted to take leave of an
officer, Sir Thomas Fryar. Over the shoulder of this
gentleman, as he bowed, a knife was thrust into Buckingham's
breast. There was an effort to withdraw it; a cry 'The
Villain!' and the great Duke, at 36 years old, was dead. The
attendants at first thought the blow came from one of the
noisy Frenchmen, and were falling on them." But a servant had
seen the deed committed, and ran after the assassin, who was
arrested and proved to be one John Felton, a soldier and a man
of good family. He had suffered wrongs which apparently
unhinged his mind.
{850}
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
6th series, chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 65._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628-1632.
Conquest and brief occupation of Canada and Nova Scotia.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1635.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The royal charter granted to the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay.
See: MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The King's Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
Tonnage and Poundage.
The tumult in Parliament and the dissolution.
Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June,
1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The
Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very
extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call
Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between
Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied
without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio
non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed
Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary
consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to
pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd':
there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to
Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had
been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In
regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant
Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to
a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like
circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of
consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's
death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of
Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of
Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of
Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully
ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable
tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was
in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February,
1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and
made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way
into History. ... A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved
upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there.
Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' ... the King
hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was
dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most
unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a
Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day,
while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to
'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had
orders to the contrary; persisted in that;--and at last took
to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days;
and consider what to do! On the second day, which was
Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's
command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday
next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former
nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn
again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once
more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But
young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second
son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for
that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his
chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such
agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House
was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy
Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them,
who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr.
Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles;
'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to
rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted
manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked
their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their
Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and
Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man
out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly
vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they
understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising
procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention,
and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil
Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and
others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much
legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was
kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday,
2d of March, 1629."
_T. Carlyle,
Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Sir John Eliot: a Biography,
book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1630.
Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
with their royal charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1631.
Aid to Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
ENGLAND: A. D: 1632.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.
See NOVA SCOTIA (ACADIA): A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1632.
The Palatine grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
The Ecclesiastical despotism of Laud.
"When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood
alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the
means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for
establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their
church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and
enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired
them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed
the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all
ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none
professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and
struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The
courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men
threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford
more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one
adversary remained--the people, each day more discontented
with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish
it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne;
it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other,
evangelical faith and civil liberty.
{851}
The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of
episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to
believe that he was not the only one who held his authority
from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of
less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so
many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the
clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the
people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed
vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the
bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the
strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its
doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to
this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous
resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands
of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took
cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious
matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its
jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete
adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the
liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously
exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great
many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were
withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they
were forbidden to preach. ... Persecution followed and reached
them everywhere. ... Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship
speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their
pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful,
magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid
great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to
collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely
the details of new ceremonies--sometimes borrowed from Rome,
sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once
ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists,
every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the
liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without
consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's
consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority.
... And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events
the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more
like that of Rome. ... Books were published to prove that the
doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself
to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly
licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly
tolerated. ... The splendour and exclusive dominion of
episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself,
Laud proceeded to secure its independence. ... The divine
right of bishops became, in a short time, the official
doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king
himself. ... By the time things had come to this pass, the
people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part
of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of
the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular
revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular
reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that
which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
book 2._
ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 2, chapters 4-6._
_G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
chapters 13-16 (volume l)._
_P. Bayne,
The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
Hostile measures against the Massachusetts Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
Ship-money.
"The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. ... All
the promises of the king were violated without scruple or
shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in
consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent,
was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority.
Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal
times were made pretexts for harassing the people with
exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were
persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were
forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They
were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit.
Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty
of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the
victims. ... The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite
of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots
deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an
inclement sky. ... For the misgovernment of this disastrous
period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the
death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime
minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him,
or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the
one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper
would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and
capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never
were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals
to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as
they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that
age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes
of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark
him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. ... But
Wentworth--whoever names him without thinking of those harsh
dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the
majesty of an antique Jupiter! ... Among the humbler tools of
Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the
attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause
of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that
cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with
Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the
people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the
king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of
war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns
along the coast. These measures, though they were direct
violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of
precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government
took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent
writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch
of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at
a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to
bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland
counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in
the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our
shores.
{852}
It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the
Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying
ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy
it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under
the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly
admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of
the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no
bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The
nation well understood this; and from one end of England to
the other, the public mind was strongly excited.
Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum
of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very
small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff
was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But,
though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the
demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most
eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the
few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to
incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of
bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between
the people and the crown. ... Towards the close of the year
1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before
all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the
writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper
was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as
yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents
had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments
of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber
took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the
bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of
Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only
during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the
least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his
favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave
their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this
decision was to make the public indignation stronger and
deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more
advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the
king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this
occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his
reputation to a great height generally throughout the
kingdom.'"
_Lord Macaulay,
Essays,
volume 2 (Nugent's Memorials of Hampden)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Hampden._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 74 (volume 7),
and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);_
ALSO
_Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages 37-53, and 115._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
Presbyterianism of the Puritan party.
Rise of the independents.
"It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of
the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the
constitution in church or state, or would square their actions
by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."
_J. Rushworth,
Historical Collection,
volume 2, 1355._
"These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the
civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been
the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the
conscientious people of England. There was a sort of
imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to
immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the
establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal
church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire
opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no
difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no
thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others.
Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery.
They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of
God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members,
and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a
blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put
down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law,
and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress
all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself
not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party,
which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction,
gradually arose the party of the independents. ... Before the
end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party
of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities,
intellectual, military and civil."
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
See, also,
INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND:
A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER),
A. D. 1646 (MARCH),
A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST),
and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
The First Bishops' War in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War.
The Scots Army in England.