Shortly after the opening of Parliament, Pym met Hyde in Westminster
Hall, and showed unmistakeably, by his conversation, the course which
he intended to pursue. "They must now," he told him, "be of another
temper than they were the last Parliament; that they must not only
sweep the house clean below, but must pull down all the cobwebs which
hung in the top and corners, that they might not breed dust, and so
make a foul house hereafter. But they had now an opportunity to make
their country happy, by removing all grievances, and pulling up the
causes of them by the roots, if all men would do their duties."[90]
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
On the 6th of November, the Commons, in pursuance of precedent,
appointed a grand Committee of religion,[91] consisting of the whole
House, to meet every Monday afternoon, at two o'clock. The next morning
came a petition from Mrs. Bastwick, and another from Mrs. Burton, on
behalf of their husbands--"close prisoners in remote islands"--after
having stood in the pillory, and lost their ears, by a Star Chamber
sentence. Immediately upon this, another petition followed from John
Brown, on behalf of his master, Mr. Prynne--"close prisoner in the
Isle of Jersey"--who also had suffered mutilation by authority of the
same tribunal. Scarcely had this arrived when another appeared from
John Lilburne--"close prisoner in the Fleet"--also under Star Chamber
condemnation. A fifth was read from Alexander Leighton, complaining
of his sentence by the same court, in pursuance of which he had been
whipped, slashed in the nose, branded on both cheeks, and deprived of
his ears, and then closely imprisoned.[92]
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
The presentation of these petitions produced an impression most adverse
to the Church. The offences of the prisoners had been the publishing of
books, which virulently assailed prelacy, superstitious worship, and
ecclesiastical despotism. The tone in some of these writings is quite
indefensible, and scarcely to be excused,[93] and had they been passed
over in silence, sympathy might have turned towards those assailed;
but after the liberty of the Press had been violated, and a merciless
punishment had been inflicted on the assailants, the tide of popular
feeling ran in their favour, and they were honoured as martyrs in their
country's cause.
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
The House of Commons at once overrode the authority of the Star
Chamber, and sent for the prisoners. Even in the pillory, and the
prison, Burton and Prynne had received testimonies of sympathy, and
now their return to London was a perfect ovation. They arrived on
the 28th of November, and were "nearly three hours in passing from
Charing Cross to their lodging in the city, having torches carried to
light them." The parish churches had rung merry peals as the liberated
prisoners reached town after town, and their escort into London
consisted of a hundred coaches, some with six horses, and two thousand
horsemen, with sprigs of rosemary in their hats--"those on foot being
innumerable."[94] Afterwards the House resolved that the proceedings
against these sufferers had been illegal and unjust--that their fines
should be remitted--that they were to be restored to liberty, and
that their persecutors should make reparation for the injuries they
had inflicted.[95] Prynne--when vacancies in Parliament occurred
through the secession of royalist members--was elected to a seat; and
thenceforth in the Long Parliament his mutilated ears became constant
mementoes of Star Chamber cruelty, stimulating resistance to arbitrary
government, if not provoking retaliation for past offences. And here
it may be noticed that many members on the patriotic side had suffered
from the despotic doings of past years. Hampden, Holles, Selden,
Strode, Sir Harbottle Grimston, Long, and Hobart had all been in
prison, and some also had paid fines.[96] They would have been more or
less than human if their memories had not aroused indignation against
the despotism of the King and his ministers. Such members seated on
the opposition benches, backed by a majority, were enough to make the
hearts of courtiers quail.
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
Not only did Pym's spirit pervade the House, and manifest itself in
these early proceedings, but his voice was heard enumerating the main
grievances in Church and State. Scarcely had the session of the Commons
commenced, when--according to the Puritan habit of the times--he
denounced the encouragement given to Papists, because their principles
were incompatible with other religions, and because with them laws
had no authority, nor oaths any obligation, seeing that the Bishop of
Rome could dispense with both. He complained further of their being
allowed offices of trust in the Commonwealth, of their free resort to
Court, and of their having a Nuncio in England, even as they had a
congregation of Cardinals in Italy. It would be unreasonable to apply
to a statesman maintaining these views in the seventeenth century,
a standard of opinion belonging to the nineteenth, and also it is
unnecessary to expose the fallacies which underlie such specious
coverings. We must admit that there were special circumstances then
existing, and recent facts in fresh remembrance--some of them will be
hereafter seen--which rendered the position of the friends of freedom
very different from what it is now. Though principles of righteousness
and charity are immutable, the recollection of old evils just escaped,
and the apprehension of new perils just at hand, may well be pleaded
in excuse of measures then adopted for self-preservation. The fear of
the restoration of Popery at that period cannot be pronounced an idle
apprehension. The Reformation was young. Rome was busy. The Queen was
a Papist. Roman Catholics were in favour at Court. Anglo-Catholicism
unconsciously was opening the gates to the enemy. And further, in
connection with this speech by Pym, it is only fair to quote what he
said on another occasion:--"He did not desire any new laws against
Popery, or any rigorous courses in the execution of those already in
force; he was far from seeking the ruin of their persons or estates,
only he wisht they might be kept in such a condition as should restrain
them from doing hurt."[97]
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
From the subject of Popery, Pym turned at once to Anglican innovations,
which he regarded as the bridge leading to it. He pointed out the
maintenance of Popish tenets in books and sermons, together with the
practice of Popish ceremonies in worship--which he compared to the
dry bones in Ezekiel, coming together, and being covered with sinews,
flesh, and skin; to be afterwards filled with breath and life. First
the form and finally the spirit of the old apostacy were creeping over
the Church of England, and the corpse buried at the Reformation even
how seemed rising from the grave. The speaker proceeded to complain of
the discouragement shown to Protestantism by prosecuting scrupulous
persons for things indifferent--such as not coming to the altar rails
to receive the communion,[98] preaching lectures on Sunday afternoons,
and using other Catechisms than that in the prayer book. This part of
Pym's speech concluded with a notice of alarming encroachments made by
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Accused persons were fined and punished
without law. A _jure divino_ authority was claimed for Episcopal order
and proceedings, and articles were contrived and published, pretending
to have the force of canon laws, which the orator declared was an
effect of great presumption and boldness, not only in the bishops, but
in their archdeacons, officials, and chancellors, who thus assumed
a kind of synodical authority. Such injunctions might well partake,
in name, with "that part of the common law which is called the
extravagants."[99] This last charge referred to what had been done in
the late convocation.
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
Other speakers followed Pym, and all adopted the same tone. Sir
Benjamin Rudyard complained of disturbances made on account of trifles,
"where to place a metaphor or an altar," and of families ruined for not
dancing on Sundays; and he asked what would become of the persecutors
when the master of the house should return and find them beating their
fellow-servants? These inventions were but sieves for the devil's
purposes, made to winnow good men. They were meant to worry diligent
preachers, for such only were vexed after this fashion. So it came to
pass that, under the name of _Puritan_, all religion was branded, and
under a few hard words against Jesuits, all Popery was countenanced;
whoever squared his actions by any rule, either divine or human, he
was a _Puritan_; whoever would be governed by the King's laws, he was
a _Puritan_; he that would not do what other men would have him to do,
was a _Puritan_. The masterpiece of the enemy was to make the truly
religious suspected of the whole kingdom.[100]
Sir John Holland, member for Castle Rising, also insisted on
ecclesiastical grievances. Bagshaw, Culpeper, and Grimston proceeded in
a similar strain. Even Lord Digby complained of prelates, convocations,
and canons, the last being "a covenant against the King for bishops
and the hierarchy."
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
Perhaps there is not on record another great debate in which such
unanimity found expression, and such volleys of grape-shot rattled
into a regiment of abuses. No question, however, affecting the
fundamental principles of the Establishment was at present raised;
but the corruptions which had covered and choked it were unsparingly
threatened. Towards them nothing but indignation was shown.
When the debate had closed with the appointment of a Committee to
prepare a remonstrance, the House, well knowing that the right way to
obtain a blessed issue was to implore the divine assistance, resolved
to desire the Lords to join with them in requesting his Majesty to
allow so holy a preparation, and, further, to appoint a general fast.
What the next day witnessed is most memorable for its political
consequences, yet it also involved ecclesiastical results of the
greatest importance. The Earl of Strafford, though suffering from the
gout to which he was a martyr, had hastened to London, and reached it
on the 10th of November; fully comprehending the state of affairs,
and meditating measures for stopping the tide of revolution. People
believed he had a project for accusing the patriots of a share in the
Scotch invasion; and that, failing other schemes, there remained the
old expedient of dissolving Parliament.
The Earl, the morning after his arrival in London, went down to the
House and took his seat; being received with all the "expressions of
honour and observance, answerable to the dignity of his place, and the
esteem and credit which he had with the King as the chief Minister
of State. But this day's sun was not fully set before his power and
greatness received such a diminution as gave evident symptoms of his
approaching ruin."[101]
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
His fellow-counsellor and trusty adherent, Archbishop Laud, moved that
from a Committee of the two Houses, to be held that afternoon, he and
four other bishops might be spared their attendance, on account of a
meeting of Convocation. The Prime Minister and the Archbishop left
the House, little dreaming of what would happen before sunset on that
November day.
Pym had heard of Strafford's arrival. Knowing the man, regarding his
return as ominous, and with a keen eye piercing into the heart of his
policy, he felt that he must grapple with him at once. Not merely for
himself had it come to be a question of life or death, but all reform
in Church and State depended on an immediate defeat of Strafford. If
suffered to do what he pleased but for another day, he might render all
the work of the last few months abortive, and bring back absolutism in
triumph. Men said of him, "he had much more of the oak than the willow
about his heart." To bend the oak was impossible, and therefore Pym
resolved to cut it down. Another such instance of timely sternness
there is not in English history.
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
Twelve years before, at Greenwich,--when Strafford, faithless to his
party, thought of accepting a coronet,--Pym had said to him, "You
are going to leave us, but I will never leave you while your head is
upon your shoulders." Did those words cross the mind of the patriotic
statesman as he passed through the lobby to take his accustomed seat on
the morning of the most memorable day of his life? Suddenly he rose,
looked round on the well-filled benches, and said he had matter great
importance to bring forward. "Let the strangers' room be cleared," he
went on to ask, "and the outer doors be locked, and the keys laid on
the clerk's table." This done, breathless silence followed. Before the
Parliament of England, now sitting in secret conclave, Pym spoke out
boldly what was in his heart. The kingdom had fallen into a miserable
condition. "Waters of bitterness" were flowing through the land; he
must enquire, he said, "from what fountain? what persons they are who
have so far insinuated themselves into the royal affections, as to be
able to pervert His Majesty's excellent judgment, to abuse his name,
and apply his authority to support their own corrupt designs?"
Pym's speech occupied some hours in delivery. In the midst of it came
interruption. With the usual formalities, a message arrived from the
House of Lords, touching the conference to which the Archbishop had
referred that morning. Though the message itself could not at first
have been contrived with a view of getting at the secret, about which
outside curiosity had risen to fever heat; yet it might have been sent
at that moment, with the hope of worming out what His Majesty's Commons
were doing within locked doors. But the messengers, as they walked
slowly up to the clerk's table, making their measured obeisances, were
none the wiser for their visit. Pym, suspecting some other object
than the professed one, had them quickly dispatched with the answer,
"that as the House was engaged on very weighty business it could not
meet the Lords just then." At the same time, he managed to "give such
advertisement to some of the Lords," that their House might be kept
from rising till his project should be fully accomplished.
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
The messengers dismissed, the doors re-locked, the buzz of conversation
hushed, Pym resumed, and at length ended his speech by demanding that
Strafford should be impeached. The demand found "consent from the whole
House;" nor in all the debate did one person offer to stop the torrent
of condemnation by any favourable testimony respecting the Earl. Lord
Falkland only counselled that time should be taken to digest the
accusation. Pym immediately replied such delay would blast all hopes,
for Strafford, hearing of their intentions, "would undoubtedly procure
the Parliament to be dissolved."
The House at once appointed a committee of seven to draw up the
charges. They retired, and soon returned with their report. The House
at once solemnly resolved to impeach the Earl at the bar of the Lords.
The clock had struck four. The doors were thrown open. "The leader of
the Commons issued forth, and followed by upwards of three hundred of
the members, crossed over in the full sight of the assembled crowd,
to the Upper House." Standing at the bar, with the retinue of members
pressing round, Pym, in the name of the Commons, accused Strafford of
high treason.[102]
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
Strafford's seat was empty. The Commons withdrew. After consideration
of the message by the peers, the Lord-keeper acknowledged its receipt,
gave credit for due care taken in the business, and promised a further
answer. The Earl was sitting at Whitehall with the King. Swift as
the wind, tidings of the impeachment began to travel, and reached
the accused amongst the first. He had been out-manœuvred. While
preparing for an attack on the enemy's camp he found his own citadel
assailed, stormed, taken. Still dauntless, he coolly remarked, "I will
go and look mine accusers in the face." Then going to the court gate
he took coach, and drove to the House. Advancing to the threshold, he
"rudely" demanded admission. James Maxwell, keeper of the Black Rod,
opened the door. His lordship, with a "proud glouming countenance,"
made towards his seat as well as his lameness would allow. He sat down,
heard[103] what was going on, and, in spite of orders to withdraw,
"kept his confidence and his place till it raised a vehement redoubling
of the former scorn, and occasioned the Lord-keeper to tell him that
he must withdraw, and to charge the gentleman usher that he would look
well to him."[104]
The proud minister found himself detained in the lobby of the House in
which once his word had been law.
The Lords debated further on the message of the Commons, and came to
the conclusion that the Earl, for this accusation of high treason,
should be committed to the safe custody of the gentleman usher, and be
sequestered from coming to Parliament until he cleared himself. Called
in, he was commanded to kneel at the bar. Completely vanquished, he
did so on the very spot where his great antagonist an hour before had
stood a conqueror. He now had formal information of the charge brought
up by Pym, and was taken into custody. Master Black Rod, proud of his
business, required his prisoner to deliver up his sword, and told a
waiting-man to carry it. As the prisoner retired, all gazed, but no man
"capped to him before whom, that morning, the greatest of England would
have stood discovered."[105] Discourteous speeches followed--for
an English mob has little pity for fallen greatness--and, to add to
his humiliation, when at last, amidst the bustle, the Earl found his
carriage, Master Maxwell insolently remarked, "Your lordship is my
prisoner, and must go in my coach."
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
That day sealed Strafford's fate; the only impediment in the patriot's
path lay crushed. Now Pym could do his will, and carry out some great
reform in Church and State. It was time.
"The strong man armed kept his palace, and his goods were in peace. But
now a stronger than he came upon him and overcame him, and took from
him all his armour, wherein he trusted, and divided his spoils."
To some readers, there may appear little or no connection between Pym's
death-wrestle with Wentworth, and the overturning of the Episcopal
Church, the setting up of Presbyterianism, and what followed; yet
really without that death-wrestle the things which happened afterwards
appear impossibilities.
When Strafford had been in the Tower a month, Laud was impeached, and
followed his friend into the custody of James Maxwell.[106]
On the 17th November, a public fast took place, when the House of
Commons assembled in the Church of St. Margaret, Westminster, and
continued in divine worship for _seven hours_.[107]
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
A few days after the fast[108] the Commons, according to precedent,
received the Holy Communion, and also according to precedent resolved
that none should sit in the House who did not partake of the
Sacrament.[109] A measure of policy was connected with their piety on
this occasion, which from its having been misunderstood has led to a
misapprehension of the whole proceeding. The fact of its having been
resolved that all should participate in the Lord's Supper has been
cited as a proof that the members were all attached to the Church of
England;[110] but Rapin[111] adopts the subtle theory that, bent upon
assailing the Bishops, the Commons resolved on this communion, to save
themselves from being suspected of Presbyterianism,--as in the reign of
Henry V., the Commons prefaced their assault on the clergy by passing
a Bill for burning heretics, to save themselves from being suspected
of heresy. Yet amidst these speculations upon the subject, the real
purpose of the House--beyond its following a precedent and gratifying
religious feelings--is frankly expressed in the Journal to have been
the discovery of papists amongst the members. The committee who
reported on the subject conceived that some confession of faith and a
renunciation of the Pope should be required from such as were suspected
of popery. At the same time two members of the House were directed to
convey to the Dean of Westminster a desire that "the elements might be
consecrated upon a communion-table, standing in the church, according
to the rubric, and to have the table removed from the altar."[112]
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
The Long Parliament, in its early sittings, occupied much time in
hearing Puritan petitions. Such petitions came from sufferers under
ecclesiastical oppression; from people dissatisfied with Anglican
clergymen; from individuals scandalized at ceremonial innovations; and
from different counties praying for redress of grievances in Church
and State. The latter petitions were brought up to town by troops of
horsemen. Such documents, accompanied by the denunciations of members
who presented them, occasioned searching inquiries into Anglican
superstition and intolerance. Persons alleged that communion-tables
were set altar-wise; that anthems and organs were superseding plain
and proper psalm-singing; that wax candles were burnt in churches in
honour of our Lady; that copes of white satin were worn by ministers;
that boys with lighted torches went in procession and bowed to the
altar; and that Puritans were roughly handled for refusing to make
a like obeisance. Further, such persons declared "flat Popery" had
been preached, as well as performed; transubstantiation, confession,
and absolution, being doctrines maintained in Anglican pulpits.[113]
Cases were brought up of clergymen unrighteously suspended for
refusing to read the "Book of Sports," and for similar offences. The
private gossip of the day touching church matters reached the House
through members anxious to stimulate their partizans. Though such
reports appear undignified enough in senatorial speeches, they are
welcome to the historian, because indicative of the staple talk round
firesides in those boisterous days. Alderman Pennington told how an
archdeacon's son had said, "God take the Parliament for a company of
Puritanical factious fellows, who would wiredraw the King for money,
when a Spanish don would lend him two millions. The King would never
have quiet until he had taken off twenty or more of their heads." In
petitions, according to the Diurnals, very odd references occurred
to the sayings and doings of High Churchmen. One declared "the
Commissaries were the suburbs of heaven, and the High Commission the
Archangels, and that to preach twice a day, or to say any prayers but
the Common Prayers, was a damnable sin." Moreover, the same newspaper
states, that a minister in Shoreditch stood charged with preaching on
the man who went down to Jericho--saying, the King was the man, the
Scots the thieves, the Protestant the priest, the formal Protestant the
Levite, and the Papist the Good Samaritan.[114] Another, being asked
how he could maintain by Scripture the turning of the communion-table
altar-wise, replied, "the times were turned, and it was fit the tables
should be turned also."
A petition came from a churchwarden cited and punished for not
prosecuting parishioners who refused to stand while hearing the
creed, to bow at the name of Jesus, to kneel at public prayer, and
to sit uncovered during sermon time. These breaches of prescribed
ecclesiastical decorum were taken as proofs of Puritan irreverence; but
when Puritans were threatened in consequence with legal penalties, such
acts appeared to them to be full of heroic virtue.
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
The growth of popery formed a fruitful topic of quaint declamation.
The approach of any great personage, it was said, may be known
by the sumpter mules sent on before. And when the Pope travels,
altars, copes, pictures, and images precede his progress. High
Church ceremonies announced the coming Mass. Clerical tricks of this
description prepared for the revival of papal domination. Resistance
had provoked persecution. Fire had come out of the bramble, and
devoured the cedars of Lebanon.[115]
Stories, too, were told of a parsonage worth three hundred a year,
where not even a poor curate remained to read prayers, catechise
children, or bury the dead; and of a vicarage, where the nave of
the church had been pulled down, the lead sold, the bells profaned,
the chancel made into a dog-kennel, and the steeple turned into a
pigeon-house.[116]
The debate of the 14th and 15th of December, on the canons, was
conducted in the same spirit as other proceedings. Convocation had met
in April, at the opening of the Short Parliament; one of the first
measures adopted being an imposition on the clergy of six subsidies
of four shillings in the pound for six years. Canons had then been
prepared, relative to the regal power for suppressing popery, also
against Socinianism and sectaries, and further, for preventing
Puritan innovations and for promoting uniformity. While discussions
on these subjects were proceeding, Parliament had been dissolved, but
Convocation had unconstitutionally determined as a royal synod, to
persevere sitting until it should be dissolved by the King's writ.[117]
Some of the clerical body had protested against this procedure, but
the King, with the opinion of certain judges, had confirmed it, and
Convocation, then acting as a synod under royal sanction, had completed
the new canons.[118]
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
Parliament poured out vials of wrath on all these canons. They included
protests against popery--the third being for the suppression of its
growth, and the seventh charging the Church of Rome with "idolatry
committed in the mass for which all popish altars were demolished," but
the Puritans overlooked or regarded all this as only a pretence for
covering assaults upon themselves. To have done so seems to us unfair,
though considering the character of the men framing the canons, with
whom members of the House of Commons were well acquainted, everybody
must believe the authors of the new laws hated Puritanism more than
Popery. The truth is, Anglicanism, though thoroughly opposed to papal
supremacy, and to some of the dogmas and superstitions of Rome,
fostered sympathy with much of the faith and worship characteristic
of that church, while it had not a breath of kindness for Puritan
sentiments. Such a state of things drove the two parties wide as the
poles asunder, and we cannot wonder that on the question of the canons
the House of Commons, revolting at Anglo-Catholicism, read all which
Convocation had done in the light of those well-known principles by
which Convocation was actuated. Whatever the bishops and clergy there,
might honestly say about popish ceremonies and the idolatry of the
mass, they were chiefly bent on crushing the Puritans, and accordingly
the Puritans grappled with the Anglicans as in a struggle for life.
Matter enough existed in these new laws to provoke destructive
criticism. The first propounded the divine right of kings, and claimed
for them powers inconsistent with the English constitution. The canon
against sectaries was extremely intolerant, and was so ingeniously
contrived as to turn statutes for suppressing popery against all sorts
of nonconforming Protestants.
[Sidenote: _Debates on Religion._]
No one, however, of this ill-fated assembly's enactments had to run
the gauntlet, like the canon relative to the et cetera oath.[119] It
speedily sank under torrents of argument and invective, ridicule, and
satire. Also, the prolonging of convocation as a synod, after the
dissolution of Parliament, incurred condemnation as wholly illegal; the
canons were pronounced invalid; and the entire proceedings subversive
of the laws of the realm.[120]
Heylyn declares that the _et cetera_ was introduced in the draft to
avoid tautology, and that the enumeration was to be perfected before
engrossment, but the king hastened its being printed, and so occasioned
the mischief.--_Heylyn's Life of Laud_, 444.
Archbishop Laud had to bear, in no small measure, the odium of the
new ecclesiastical measures. Doubtless, he had a leading hand in
their origin, but it is also a fact, that before the opening of the
Long Parliament, he wrote by His Majesty's command to the bishops of
his province, to suspend the operation of the article respecting the
et cetera oath.[121] And when the House had been sitting a little
more than three weeks, after Pym, Culpeper, Grimston, and Digby, had
attacked this unpopular clerical legislation, and when a still more
distinct and violent assault was seen to be approaching, the Archbishop
wrote a letter to Selden, member of a committee for enquiry upon the
subject, requesting that the "unfortunate canons" might be suffered to
die quietly, without blemishing the Church, which had too many enemies
both at home and abroad.[122]
[Sidenote: 1640, November.]
The vote of the House of Commons administered a blow to Convocation
from which it could not recover. That assembly, indeed, again appeared
as the twin sister of the new Parliament. Representatives of the
province of Canterbury met on the 3rd November, the day on which
the Lords and Commons assembled. The usual formalities having been
observed, a sermon preached, and a prolocutor chosen--Archbishop Laud
addressed the clergy in Henry the Seventh's chapel, in a manner which
shewed that he heard the sound of the brewing storm, and had sense
enough to discern the impending danger. So had others of the assembly.
Accordingly, some one proposed in the Lower House, that "they should
endeavour according to the Levitical law to cover the pit which
they had opened, and to prevent the designs of their adversaries by
condemning the obnoxious canons." But the majority, not willing to
be condemned till formally accused, heeded not this warning; yet the
members avoided giving further provocation, and, feeble themselves,
they only watched the proceedings of their parliamentary neighbours.
When the resolution of the Commons was passed it paralyzed them. The
Upper House did not meet again after Christmas, nor the Lower after the
following February.[123] The assembly of the Convocation of York had
been prevented by the death of the Archbishop, and the new writ issued
came to nothing.
Here we shall pause for a moment to watch other forces coming into
play.
[Illustration]