The May-day of 1641 was as merry as usual, save where Puritan opinions
interfered with its time-honoured festivities. The May-pole was
brought into the City and reared at St. Andrew's Undershaft with the
accustomed honours. The morris-dancers, with Robin Hood, Maid Marian,
Friar Tuck, and the other appurtenances of the show, made sport for
those citizens who were attached to the old order of things. And in
spite of Stubbs' "Anatomie of Abuses," which exposed these sports as
heathenish practices, such persons looked on them as the symbols of an
anti-Puritan loyalty, and of an old-fashioned affection for Church and
State. At the same period, preparations were being made at Whitehall
for the nuptials of the Princess Mary and the Prince of Orange; and the
next day, being Sunday, the bride was led into the Chapel by the Prince
of Wales and the Duke of York, "convoyed with a number of ladies of her
own age of nine and ten years, all in cloth of silver," when the King
gave away the bride, and "good Bishop Wren made the marriage."[168] The
destinies of England were mysteriously connected with the consequences
of this royal union, and little could the brilliant party before the
altar, dream that from the wedded pair would spring a son, destined
to cut off one branch of the Stuart dynasty for ever from the British
throne; to complete the series of revolutionary events beginning to
arise at the time of the marriage; and to establish for ages the civil
and religious liberties of the English Constitution.
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
The month so inaugurated proved most eventful. During April the perils
of the nation had been on the increase. Plots were contrived by the
King's friends to bring up the army to London and force a dissolution
of Parliament. Pym, on the 3rd of May, declared that "combinations at
home" corresponded with "practices abroad," and that the French were
drawing their forces towards the English shores; that divers persons
of eminence about the Queen were deeply engaged in these plots; that
it was necessary for the ports to be closed, and that it was time to
ask His Majesty to forbid any one who attended Court to leave these
shores without special permission. Sir John Wray, member for the county
of Lincoln, made a speech immediately after Pym had spoken, in which
he urged, that if ever it was meant to perfect and finish the great
work begun, the right way must be followed, which was to become holy
pilgrims, not Popish ones. This he explained as meaning that they were
to be loyal Covenanters with God and the King; binding themselves by
a national oath to preserve religion in this country, without mixture
of superstition or idolatry, and to defend the Defender of the Faith,
his person, crown, and dignity. Doing this, and making Jerusalem their
chiefest joy, the nation would be blessed; but if the people let go
their Christian hold, and lost their Parliament-proof and old English
well-tempered mettle, let them take heed lest their buckler break, and
their Parliaments melt away, and their golden candlestick be removed
for ever.[169]
[Sidenote: _Debates in the House of Commons._]
In consequence of these appeals, the Commons resolved upon a solemn
Vow and Protestation, to defend, as far as lawful, "with life, power,
and estate, the true reformed Protestant religion" of the Church of
England, against all popery and popish innovations; to maintain the
privilege of Parliament, and the liberties of the subject; and to
endeavour to bring to condign punishment any person who should engage
in conspiracy, or do anything contrary to this Protestation.[170] It
was forthwith taken by every member, and then the document was sent
up to the Lords. The peers present, except the Earl of Southampton
and Lord Roberts, followed the example of the Commons. In two days
the formulary had passed the lips of eighty temporal lords, seventeen
bishops, nine judges, and four hundred and thirty-eight commoners. It
was then printed and sent to the magistrates throughout the kingdom,
with an order that it should be solemnly adopted on the following
Sunday by heads of families and all persons of proper age.[171]
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
Of course, questions arose as to the meaning of the words, in many
cases, no doubt, after they had been sealed by oath. Episcopalians took
the declaration to mean defending the Protestant religion, as in the
Church of England by law established. No such thing, said the Puritan
majority of the Lower House; it includes not the hierarchy. It is
_against_ all popery and popish innovations, not _for_ the discipline
worship and ceremonies of the Church as they stand at present.[172]
The Commons, having so explained their own measure, afterwards passed
a Bill for its universal enforcement, which however was objected to by
the Lords. A conference between the two Houses followed, conducted by
Denzil Holles, who defended the imposition of the oath, as a shibboleth
to distinguish Ephraimites from Gileadites. With his reasons, "after
some debate, the Lords seemed satisfied."[173] The proceeding shewed
the alarm of the representatives of the people, lest they should be
checkmated by their opponents. It indicated a determination to abide
by what had been done, and further to grapple with all Papistical
tendencies; whilst the Protestation itself anticipated the more famous
Covenant of an after year, much to the joy of Robert Baillie, who,
writing from his house in St. Antholin's, on the 4th of May, informed
a Scotch brother: "After much debate, at last, blessed be the name of
the Lord, they all swore and subscribed the writ, which here you have,
I hope in substance, our Scottish covenant."[174] The intolerance and
injustice of the imposition could not be seen in those days as it
is in ours. Intended to secure liberty for such as were counted its
only friends, it in fact partook of that very injustice, which, when
exercised on the other side, appeared intolerable.
[Sidenote: _Debates in the House of Commons._]
The resolute temper of the House of Commons, in resolving upon
the enforcement of the Protestation in spite of the Lords, is to
be ascribed very much to the new position in which the House had
placed itself. Mistrusting the intentions of the King, fearful of
another dissolution, which would frustrate all patriotic plans, the
representatives of the people had passed a Bill to render Parliament
indissoluble until it should dissolve itself. The Bill was read a third
time on the 7th of May, and such was the ascendancy of the Commons,
that the King--either struck for a moment, as if by the eye of a
basilisk, or intending to violate the Act, should it be in his power;
or influenced by "his own shame and the Queen's consternation at the
discovery of the late plot"[175]--gave his assent to the fatal measure
only two days after it had passed the Lords.
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
During the progress of the Protestation, the Londoners manifested the
greatest excitement; crowds assembled in Palace Yard, and the King
sent a message to the House of Lords to say, that, taking notice of
the great tumult and concourse of people, he had called a council to
advise what should be done, and it was his pleasure that Parliament
should adopt some speedy course for preserving peace.[176] A laughable
circumstance occurred amidst this panic. Two fat citizens, in the
gallery of the Commons, stood earnestly listening to Sir Walter Erle,
whilst he was descanting on the dangers of the times. Just then, an
old board gave a loud creak, and Sir John Wray, imagining a second
Guy Fawkes concealed in the cellar, called out, "he smelt gunpowder."
This was enough. Knights and burgesses rushed out and frightened the
people in the lobby, and the people in the lobby ran into Westminster
Hall, crying, "the Parliament House was falling, and the members were
slain." A few, scampering as fast as they could to Westminster Stairs,
took water, and rowing at the top of their speed, reached the City,
where they caused the alarm drums to beat, and the train bands to march
as far as Covent Garden. All this arose from the creaking of a rotten
board.[177]
The exposure of these idle fears did not, however, compose the House;
for, on the 10th of May, members were in such consternation about a
gunpowder plot, that the Serjeant-at-arms received an order to get the
holes of the floor examined and stopped up; also a committee of five
proceeded carefully to search the building to discover and prevent
the designs of any ill-affected persons who might be imitating the
example of Guy Fawkes. Whilst we smile at these unfounded terrors,
we must believe some real danger to have been in the wind, to make
strong hearts, such as beat in the Long Parliament, thus flutter with
apprehension.
[Sidenote: _Debates in the House of Commons._]
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
About the same time London echoed with "No popery riots." The presence
of Marie de' Medicis in England excited immense uneasiness; and the
zeal of that lady and her daughter, Queen Henrietta Maria, on behalf of
the interests of the Roman Catholic religion, came to be regarded by
Puritan citizens as a fountain of intrigue. At the end of April, the
London apprentices--a class always foremost in city frays--catching
the spirit of their sires and elders, gave it violent expression,
by assaulting the Spanish ambassador's house in Bishopsgate Street,
threatening to pull it about his Excellency's ears, and to take
his life in revenge for permitting English Papists to frequent his
chapel.[178]
Other tumults and a deeper excitement appear in connexion with the
trial of Strafford. Though the charges against him were chiefly of a
political character, and his overthrow was accomplished mainly for
political reasons, yet the religious feelings of the Puritans were
intensely excited against this arbitrary chieftain, as the friend of
Laud, and the abettor of his High Church policy. They saw in him the
evil genius of the past, and his removal seemed to them essential for
accomplishing the ecclesiastical reforms which they desired.[179]
The conclusions which a student will reach, or the doubts that he
will entertain touching the righteousness of Strafford's attainder
and sentence, depend entirely upon the point of view from which he
may regard the question. No wonder that lawyers now pronounce the
attainder infamous.[180] Looking at the statutes of treason, it is
impossible to bring the conduct of the Earl within their scope.
The subversion of the fundamental laws of the kingdom, with which
Strafford was charged, can never be fairly construed into an act of
treason against the King. But politicians, examining the subject on
grounds of expediency, may regard the proceeding as one of necessity
to save the liberties of England. They may also think, as some did at
the time, that "stone dead hath no fellow"--that the only effectual
way of getting rid of so formidable an enemy was at once to put him in
his coffin; and, as a matter of state policy--overriding all statute
and common law--such persons will pronounce the execution of Strafford
perfectly justifiable. But when the moralist comes to investigate the
matter, it assumes a different aspect. He will admit--unless he be
under the influence of strong political prejudices--that the Earl was
guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours; and that, though not guilty
of treason at common or statute law, he was guilty of subverting the
principles of the constitution. On grounds therefore of moral equity,
it was right to inflict some punishment on the offender. But to what
extent? Perpetual imprisonment, with proper precautions against rescue,
might have sufficed to meet all which political expediency required.
Sent out of the way, shut up in some strong castle, the Earl might
have been rendered perfectly innocuous; and it may fairly be contended
further, that such a proceeding would have accomplished the ends of
justice--that such an expiation ought to have satisfied the moral
indignation of the country. Yet, when that point is settled, another
arises, which demands consideration from the historian.
[Sidenote: _Lord Strafford._]
While, free from the excitements of the seventeenth century, we
calmly look at Strafford's deserts, is it fair to apply our standard
of judgment to the patriots and Puritans of 1641 who took part in
his condemnation? Right and wrong, it is true, in themselves are
unalterable and eternal, but there are almost infinite degrees in the
blameworthiness of men doing wrong, as there are in the meritoriousness
of men doing right. Allowance being made for different ideas of
criminal jurisprudence in the times of the Stuarts from those now
current; and excuses being admitted for stern severity provoked by
long oppression,--the patriots and Puritans who put Strafford to death
must not be condemned as men would be who had done such a thing in
our own times. If it be allowed that the Puritans acted under a sense
of mistaken justice; that, standing before the bar of Heaven, they
could lay their hands on their breasts, and plead the convictions of
conscience and the impulses of patriotism; then, however condemnatory
the deed, lenient should be the sentence on the offenders. I am not
however prepared to contend for the absence of all vindictiveness
in the men who brought Strafford to trial, and then sent him to the
scaffold. One cannot but fear that a large amount of alloy was mixed
up with the purity of their justice. But that must be left for the
decision of a far different tribunal from any which we can erect.
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
Every reader of English history is aware of the perplexity of Charles
when required by Parliament to sanction the death of his Minister.
He did not believe Strafford guilty of treason, and he consequently
regarded his execution as unjust. Yet he sought for some method of
pacifying his conscience, and consulted certain Bishops[181] as to the
course that he should pursue. The general advice they gave is reported
by the most distinguished of the counsellors. Ussher puts it thus:
The matter of fact must be distinguished from the matter of law; of
the matter of fact the King may judge; if he do not conceive the Earl
guilty, he cannot in justice condemn him; but as for law, what is
treason, and what is not, the King must rely on the opinion of the
judges.[182]
[Sidenote: _Lord Strafford._]
This casuistry of Charles's advisers indicated the timid expediency of
politicians rather than the grave righteousness of God's ministers. But
what followed was much worse. One of them--probably Williams--suggested
a distinction between the public capacity of Charles as a king, and
the private capacity of Charles as a man; a distinction worthy only
of a Jesuit, and such as, if allowed, would tear up the roots of all
morality in official life.[183] It appears that the other prelates
were not responsible for this suggestion. Still reserve is seen on the
part of the best men amongst the monarch's advisers, very unlike the
outspoken habits of old Hebrew prophets. In their conduct there is much
to provoke censure, though in their circumstances there is something to
suggest excuse.
In justice to Ussher, let it be added, that he recommended the King
not to consent to the Earl's condemnation unless he was convinced of
his guilt. Charles himself declared, "After the bill was passed, the
Archbishop came to me, saying, with tears in his eyes, 'Oh, Sir, what
have you done? I fear that this act may prove a great trouble to your
conscience, and pray God that your Majesty may never suffer by the
signing of this Bill.'" The Episcopal party, though they did nothing
decidedly against the execution of Strafford, ever afterwards regarded
it as a dark spot in their royal master's history. They were certainly
themselves not free from blame, for if they regarded the proceeding
as they said they did, it became them to do their utmost to save
Strafford's life. But the truth is, as the Minister was made a Jonah
to still the storm, so the Monarch was made a scape-goat to bear the
responsibility of throwing him overboard. With the superstition natural
to a man wanting in straightforward principle, Charles, in the midst of
his after troubles, promised to expiate his offence by public penance,
should he ever be restored to his throne. That day of penance never
came: but the moral effect of Strafford's dignified conduct in prison
and on the scaffold has been such as to soften the opinion of posterity
respecting his character, and to increase the condemnation pronounced
by history upon Charles for consenting to his death. Strafford's last
moments were the noblest of his life. The scene, as he knelt under
Laud's window in the Tower to receive his benediction, touches English
hearts to this very hour; pity is felt for the man going to his doom on
the adjoining hill, which would never have been inspired had his fate
been imprisonment instead of death. Both injustice and impolicy are
sure to meet revenge, as Providence slowly knits up the threads of time.
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
Strafford fell on the 12th of May. Amidst the mingled awe and
exultation of the moment--whilst the name of the nobleman who had
perished passed from lip to lip through London, and the sawdust on the
scaffold continued moist with blood--the House of Commons calmly sat to
hear an appeal respecting Deans and Chapters. The men, who unconscious
of guilt had brought Strafford to the block, and had thus swept from
their path a huge obstacle, were at this awful moment quietly pursuing
their measures of ecclesiastical reform. The event of the morning,
however, one would imagine, came too vividly before them to allow
of perfectly serene attention to the pleadings carried on in their
presence.
[Sidenote: _Deans and Chapters._]
Great alarm had been felt for the safety of cathedral establishments,
although no measure at present had appeared in either House affecting
their dignity or diminishing their revenues. But reports of approaching
danger were rife, which did not at first alarm and arouse the
"prelatical court clergy" so much as it did some others. They waited
to see distinctly what impended before attempting a defence. Now they
bestirred themselves and prepared petitions, and being informed that
the order of the House would not permit of their employing counsel,
they delegated Dr. John Hacket, Prebendary of St. Paul's and Archdeacon
of Bedford, to plead their cause. On this 12th of May, Hacket came up
to the bar of the House to fulfil an office which, he said, had been
assigned to him only the afternoon before. He pleaded, that cathedrals
supplied the defects of private worship, though he quaintly admitted
that--through the super-inquisitiveness of the music--what was intended
for devotion vanished away into quavers and airs, whereof he wished
the amendment; and passing to what he termed "the other wing of the
cherubim," he expatiated on the excellent preaching supplied by these
establishments; refuting, by the way, slanders on lecturers as an
upstart corporation, and shewing that the local statutes of most
cathedrals required week-day lectures. The advocate urged further, that
Deans and Chapters advanced the cause of learning, and provided persons
for defending the Church. Moreover, he said, the institute comported
with primitive usage, being in fact a _senatus episcopi_, and therefore
meeting a want of which some of his reverend brethren complained.
Warming with his subject, he praised the magnificence of cathedral
buildings, mentioned the number dependent on the foundations, insisted
on the excellence of Deans and Chapters as landlords, and their
enrichment of cities by their residence and hospitality. The Doctor
proceeded to uphold cathedral revenues as prizes to stimulate lawful
ambition, and contended for a better maintenance of the clergy than in
neighbouring reformed Churches--that they might not be like "Jeroboam's
priests, the basest of all the people." To destroy Deans and Chapters,
he added, would please the Papists--to preserve them would benefit the
nation. He concluded by observing that the honour of God was at stake
in this matter, that alienation of church property would be sacrilege,
and that "on the ruins of the rewards of learning no structure can be
raised but ignorance; and upon the chaos of ignorance nothing can be
built but profaneness and confusion."[184]
Dr. Cornelius Burgess, a London lecturer of Presbyterian principles,
appeared in the afternoon of the same eventful day, and indulged in
"a vehement invective against Deans and Chapters," their want of
Scripture authority, and their utter unprofitableness. He charged
some of the singing men with debauchery, and all with uselessness.[185]
Yet he considered it unlawful to convert the revenues to private uses.
In his opinion they ought to be consecrated to public purposes of a
religious kind. After hearing the arguments of Hacket and Burgess, the
House allowed the matter to stand over for a while. Hereafter we shall
have to notice its re-appearance.
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
The Commons a few days afterwards (May 17) gave signs of coming
under Presbyterian influence. Having debated certain propositions
presented by the Scotch commissioners, they reciprocated by resolution
the affectionate regards of their brethren, and their desires for
uniformity in Church government. They went so far as to pledge
themselves to proceed in due time with reformatory measures, such as
should "best conduce to the glory of God and the peace of the Church."
Three days subsequently, the House set aside the oath of canonical
obedience, by voting that no minister should be obliged to take any
oath upon his induction, except _such as Scripture warranted_.[186] In
all this, a current of feeling against Episcopacy is distinctly visible.
[Sidenote: _Abolition of Episcopacy._]
The Bill for "Restraining Bishops from intermeddling with Secular
Affairs" came again under debate. It had been sent to the Upper House
on the 1st of May, when Bishop Hall made a speech against it.[187] The
Bill reached a second reading, and was committed on the 14th. Whatever
idea of compromise by passing this measure might have existed among the
Commons, no such idea was entertained by the Lords. They disputed
the question with all the logic and eloquence they could master;
evidently regarding the overthrow of this measure as of vital moment.
The Right Reverend bench stood firm, and the Bishop of Lincoln--to
shew that his committee of accommodation meant nothing prejudicial to
the order--boldly defended it in a speech which was full of learning
and rhetoric. Lord Viscount Newark also strenuously opposed the Bill;
but it received earnest support from the Puritan Lord Say and Sele.
Yet the latter wished their lordships not to regard it as introduced
with any ulterior view,--telling them, it meant not the taking away
of Episcopacy _root and branch_, but only the lopping off exuberant
and superfluous boughs which now wasted the juices of the tree. The
Lords feared the consequence of passing the bill, and deemed the
episcopal status amongst them as of ancient and inalienable right. So
they resolved, that Archbishops and Bishops should have "suffrage and
voice as ever;" but to the other propositions they agreed, viz:--that
prelates should have nothing to do with the Star Chamber Court or the
Privy Council, and that no clergyman should be any longer a Justice of
the Peace. These points a year before--had Strafford and Laud conceded
them when they were in power--would have been counted an immense
concession. But ecclesiastical as well as political matters had since
passed through a whole heaven of change; therefore the three articles
granted by the Lords were by the Commons deemed trifles unworthy of
acceptance apart from the first.
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
On the 24th of May, the resolution described passed the House of Lords.
The impression which it made on the Commons is plain from what ensued.
The patriots knitted their brows when the tidings reached them, and
compressed their lips in firm determination to subdue the lordly
prelates. We now reach an important crisis.
The Commons assembled as usual on the 27th of May. A petition came from
the Lincolnshire farmers and burghers, with many hands to it, praying
for the abolition of the government of Archbishops and Bishops, and
their numerous subordinates.[188] As the gentlemen in broadbrimmed hats
and scanty cloaks with goodly neck-ruffs or ample collars sat gravely
pondering these ominous petitions,--suddenly, from a well-known voice,
a short speech broke on their ears like the explosion of a bombshell.
On the southern, or right-hand corner of St. Stephen's Chapel, a ladder
might have been discovered, leading up to a gallery where certain
members were accustomed to sit. Sir Arthur Haselrig commonly took his
place there. That morning Sir Edward Dering was seen striding up the
ladder to a seat next Sir Arthur. The member for Leicestershire held
close and earnest conference with the Kentish knight. A paper was
pressed into his hands, and after a hasty perusal, with a good-natured
air of importance, he rose, leaned over the gallery, and made the
following impromptu remarks:--
[Sidenote: _Abolition of Episcopacy._]
"Mr. Speaker--The gentleman that spake last, taking notice of the
multitude of complaints and complainants against the present government
of the Church, doth somewhat seem to wonder that we have no more
pursuit ready against the persons offending. Sir, the time is present,
and the work is ready perhaps beyond his expectation. Sir, I am now
the instrument to present unto you a very short but a very sharp Bill,
such as these times and their sad necessities have brought forth. It
speaks a free language, and makes a bold request. It is a purging
Bill. I give it you as I take physic, not for delight but for a cure.
A cure now, the last and only cure, if as I hope all other remedies
have been first tried, then--_immedicabile vulnus, &c._, but _cuncta
prius tentanda_. I never was for ruin so long as I could hold any
hope of reforming. My hopes that way are even almost withered. This
Bill is entitled, 'An Act for the utter abolishing and taking away of
all Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans,
Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, Prebendaries, Chanters, and Canons,
and all other their under officers.' Sir, you see their demerits have
exposed them, _publici odii piaculares victimas_. I am sorry they are
so ill. I am sorry they will not be content to be bettered, which I
did hope would have been effected by our last Bill. When this Bill
is perfected I shall give a sad aye unto it; and at the delivery in
thereof, I do now profess beforehand, that if my former hopes of a full
Reformation may yet revive and prosper, I will again divide my sense
upon this Bill, and yield my shoulders to under-prop the primitive,
lawful, and just Episcopacy; yet so as that I will never be wanting
with my utmost pains and prayers to root out all the undue adjuncts and
superstructures on it. I beseech you read the Bill, and weigh well the
work."[189]
[Sidenote: 1641, May.]
It was an odd speech for any man to make who had undertaken so grave a
business, and it looked doubly odd that Sir Edward Dering should father
such a motion; seeing that, though he was a Puritan, he professed to
love the Episcopal Church. Men stared and wondered. A pause followed.
Then some one moved, that the Bill might not be read:--
"That it was against the custom and rule of the House that any
private person should take upon him, without having first obtained
the leave and direction of the House to bring in a new Act, so much
as to abrogate and abolish any old single law; and therefore that it
was wonderful presumption in that gentleman, to bring in a Bill that
overthrew and repealed so many Acts of Parliament, and changed and
confounded the whole frame of the government of the kingdom."[190]
The Bill, however, was then read a first time. On the motion for the
second reading, Sir John Culpeper, one of the popular party, opposed
it on the ground, that Episcopal government was not beyond all hope of
reformation. He advised the House to see what the Lords would yet do
with the Bill sent up to them. D'Ewes supported the second reading.
Sir Charles Williams, member for Monmouthshire, opposed it, declaring
that he would divide the House, though there should be "but six noes."
For this he was called to account, and compelled to apologize, to "the
good satisfaction of the House." The second reading passed by 139 to
108. On a resumption of the debate, Pleydell and Hyde took the lead
in opposing the measure. The latter argued that Church and State had
flourished many centuries under the present ecclesiastical rule, and
that the Bill must not be hastily adopted, since it contained matter of
great weight and importance. D'Ewes promptly replied, that the existing
ecclesiastical rule had hardly reached its hundredth year. Hyde would
have rejoined, but the House did not allow him so to do. Holles and Pym
followed, contending that bishops had well nigh ruined all religion,
and complaining that they had determined to continue in the Upper
House, despite the opposition of the Lower. The Commons ordered the
Bill to be committed on the 3rd of June. It was then deferred to the
11th of the same month.[191]
[Sidenote: _Abolition of Episcopacy._]
Dering's conduct at the time appeared a mystery. Afterwards he
explained,[192] that he had nothing to do with the preparation of
the measure--that it was entrusted to him by Sir Arthur Haselrig,
who had received it from Sir Harry Vane and Oliver Cromwell. It
further appears, that he scarcely read the motion before moving its
adoption. Haselrig's connection with this bold proceeding, as well as
with Strafford's attainder, are proofs of his having then assumed a
prominent position amongst ultra-politicians; but the character of the
measure would rather suggest that Sir Harry Vane must really have been
its author. Cromwell's relation to it is also worthy of notice, as it
indicates his advanced opinions at the period, and his already active
and influential statesmanship. According to Clarendon, the Solicitor
General, Oliver St. John, "the dark-lantern man," had drawn up the
Bill--a statement, which, if true, shows another of the republican
commonwealth men taking up an extreme position at the outset of the
strife.[193]
[Sidenote: 1641, June.]
No doubt the concocters of this design considered that it would meet
with better acceptance if presented by a merely doctrinal Puritan; and
it indicates the excited temper of the Commons at the moment, and how
the resistance of the Lords had wrought them up to a resolution of
frightening mitred heads--that the Bill immediately came to a second
reading, and that too by such a majority. Moreover, it expressed
growing indignation against the course of oppression with which
Episcopacy stood identified. For long years the Church had been sowing
the wind--now, in a few short hours, it reaped the whirlwind. To those
who wished to get rid of Episcopacy altogether, the proceedings of the
Lords, although very exasperating, would not be altogether unwelcome,
as advanced politicians might gather from it an argument against what
they deemed to be half-measures. They asked--since bishops cling so
tenaciously to their temporalities, would it not be as easy to get rid
of both, as to tear one from the other? Some moderate men, discouraged
and annoyed, were thus thrown into the arms of excited companions.
Policy led them on to extremes, hoping that the boldness of the
people's representatives now in the ascendant, would alarm the Lords,
especially the spiritual ones, and induce them to give way, even on a
point where they had staked their fortunes and planted the defence of
their order.
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
As the business of Dering's bill was under debate, a message arrived
from the Upper House, signifying a readiness to concur in the Bill
which they had already received, excepting only the clause for taking
away the bishops' votes. "This message," we are told, "took little
effect with the Commons."[194]
A conference followed on the 3rd of June, when the peers were as
decided as the Commons. They contended that there could be no question
of the bishops' right to sit in Parliament, as well by common and
statute law as by constant practice; and they further declared, that
they knew of no inconveniences attending the privilege; still, if there
were any, they were ready to consider them.[195] In reply the Commons
alleged, that intermeddling with secular business hindered the exercise
of ministerial functions, and that bishops should devote themselves
entirely to their spiritual vocation. They added, that councils and
canons forbid their engaging in secular affairs--that the twenty-four
bishops are dependent on two archbishops--that with a peerage only
for life, they are ever hoping for translation--that of late several
prelates had encroached on the liberty of conscience belonging to His
Majesty's subjects, and would still do so--and that they were pledged
in their parliamentary character to maintain a jurisdiction grievous
to the three kingdoms, and already abolished in Scotland, while it was
petitioned against both in England and Wales. Finally, the Commons
urged that rank as peers placed the prelates at too great a distance
from the rest of the clergy. The arguments of neither House satisfied
the other. The Commons could not accept the answer of the Lords. We
will, declared they, have the whole Bill or none. Then, replied the
Lords, you shall have none; and threw it out altogether. A wedge had
before entered the oak of the English constitution. This blow split the
two branches asunder, and they stood apart wider than before.
[Sidenote: 1641, June.]
The Commons went on their way, and framed a piece of Sabbath
legislation, by prohibiting bargemen and lightermen from using their
barks on the day of rest. Further, they separated ancient usages from
parish perambulations, by requiring that no service should be said, nor
any psalms sung when such perambulations took place. And then--perhaps
to cover the measure against the bishops with some show of zeal for
clerical order--the House reproved some poor people brought before them
for schismatical irregularities.[196]
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
Needing themselves a lesson on religious liberty, the Commons resolved
to follow up their attack on those whom they considered to be its
greatest enemies. "We fell upon the great debate of the Bill of
Episcopacy," observes D'Ewes, in his Diary, June 11. "Robert Harley,
as I gathered, Mr. Pym, Mr. Hampden, and others, with Mr. Stephen
Marshall, parson, of Finchingfield, in the county of Essex, and some
others, had met yesternight and appointed, that this Bill should be
proceeded withal this morning. And the said Sir Robert Harley moved
it first in the House, for Mr. Hampden out of his serpentine subtlety
did still put others to move those businesses that he contrived."[197]
From this passage it appears, that Pym had within six months made a
considerable advance in his advocacy of ecclesiastical reform. It will
be recollected, that in January he "thought it was not the intention
of the House to abolish Episcopacy," but now before Midsummer he
seems to agree in opinion with the "root and branch men." Hampden,
probably, entered the Long Parliament with at least a deep suspicion
of the inexpediency of upholding episcopal rule: and both he and
Pym were now in close conference with Stephen Marshall, the famous
Presbyterian divine: who, by the way, affords an instance of the active
part in political movements for the overthrow of bishops, which even
then had begun to be taken by clergymen of his order. D'Ewes further
reports:--"So after a little debate the House was resolved into a
committee, and Mr. Edward Hyde (a young utter-barrister of the Middle
Temple), upon the speaker's leaving his chair, went into the clerk's
chair, and there sat also many days after." The making Hyde chairman
was a stroke of policy--so he says himself--on the part of those who
were favourable to the Bill, on the ground that thus he would be
prevented from speaking against it.
According to his own account, he amply revenged himself, and proved
no small hindrance, by mystifying questions and frequently reporting
"two or three votes directly contrary to each other," so that after
nearly twenty days spent in that manner, the Commons "found themselves
very little advanced towards a conclusion."[198] The trick indicates
the character of the man; and the confession of it years afterwards,
is a sign of his effrontery; indeed, the whole of his conduct on this
occasion proves how little he could have had at heart the interests of
Episcopacy, not to speak boldly on its behalf, and vindicate that which
he professed was venerable in his eyes, in this the crisis of its fate
and the hour of its humiliation.
[Sidenote: 1641, June.]
In the course of debate, Sir Harry Vane advocated the abolition of
Episcopacy, inveighing against it as a plant which God's right hand
had not planted, but one full of rottenness and corruption, a mystery
of iniquity fit to be plucked up and removed out of the way. Yet he
did not advocate what would now be called the separation of Church
and State; nor did he enter upon the defence or exposition of any
broad principle of religious liberty. At the same time, Waller, the
poet--a lively speaker, who, even at the age of eighty, could amuse
the House with his badinage and wit--protested against further attacks
on Episcopacy, now that its horns and claws were cut and pared. He
was, he said, for reform, not for abolition. Upon the close of the
debate on the 11th--which lasted from early in the morning till late
at night--the committee, in spite of Mr. Hyde's expedients, resolved
on the preamble of the Bill: "Whereas the government of the Church of
England by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors, and commissaries,
deans, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers, hath been found,
by long experience, to be a great impediment to the perfect reformation
and growth of religion, and very prejudicial to the civil state and
government of this kingdom."[199]
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
On the 15th June, during an earnest discussion relative to the
abolition of cathedral chapters, Mr. William Thomas, member for
Carnarvon, related to the House the history of Deans, tracing them
up to the time of Augustine, who describes each as having the care
of ten monks; and then he asked, "whether the office, as now it is
exercised, be the same as then?" "They are deceived that urge it,"
the Welsh representative proceeded to say, "and they should know that
this judicious House is able to discern and distinguish a counterfeit
face of antiquity from the true. In vain do they, with the Gibeonites,
labour to deceive us by old sacks, old shoes, old garments, old boots,
and old bread that is dry and mouldy; therefore to no purpose and
causelessly do they charge us to affect novelty, by our offering to
take away church governors and government." He narrated stories of
wicked deans; and said much about church music, as tickling the ear,
without touching the heart, "whilst, as Augustine complaineth of
himself, most were more moved by the sweetness of the song, than by
the sense of the matter--working their bane like the deadly touch of
the asps in a tickling delight--or as the soft touch of the hyena,
which doth infatuate and lull asleep and then devoureth." Sir Benjamin
Rudyard, who had before declared himself for Church reform, and still
advocated it, offered some defence of cathedral establishments on the
ground of their being conducive to the promotion of piety and learning.
He deplored the selfishness which, in certain cases, led to the
alienation of ecclesiastical property at the time of the Reformation;
he warned his hearers against looking on Church lands with a carnal
eye, and he besought them to search their hearts, that they might
pursue sincere ends, without the least thought of saving their purses.
Mr. Pury, alderman and member for Gloucester, produced the statutes
which ordained that Deans and Canons should always reside within the
cathedral's precincts, exercising the virtues of hospitality; that they
should preach the Word in season and out of season, especially in the
cathedral church and attend to the education of the young; and that
they should have a common table in the Common Hall, where the canons,
scholars, choristers, and subordinate officers should meet together.
The Alderman then proceeded to observe, that not one of the statutes
was kept, that the Dignitaries came once a year to receive the rents
and profits of the lands, but did not distribute to the poor their
proportion; that they neither mended the highways and bridges, nor kept
any common table; and instead of preaching the gospel, they neglected
it themselves, and did not encourage the discharge of the duty by
others.[200] Throughout this debate the unpopularity at the time of
that class, commonly termed the dignified clergy, appears in a very
distinct and serious form. They had so completely identified themselves
with the High Church party; they had become so imbued with the spirit
of pride and intolerance; they had been so selfish in the exaction and
enjoyment of their revenues; and they had been so unmindful of their
spiritual duties, as to separate themselves from public sympathy:--a
consequence which no class of religious ministers, whatever may be
their legal and social position, can long afford to brave; a result
which the highest privileged orders have never at last been able to
face with impunity.
[Sidenote: 1641, June.]
The discussion ended with a resolution that Deans and Chapters, and
all Archdeacons should be utterly abolished, and that their lands
should be employed for the advancement of learning and piety, competent
maintenance being afforded to those who might thereby suffer loss,
provided that they were not delinquents. The House further resolved,
that the forfeited property should be entrusted to feoffees, that
the bishops' lands should be given to the King, except advowsons
and impropriations, and that competent funds should be reserved for
supporting preachers in cathedrals, and for repairing the sacred
edifices.
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
Proceeding with the business respecting Deans and Chapters, the
committee did not drop the question of Bishops. On the 21st of June
no change had come over the pleadings of the originator of the whole
discussion. Dering's anti-prelatical zeal had not yet begun to
wane, although he now complained of his adopted Bill as defective,
and insisted on the importance of deciding on a future form of
government before abandoning the present. He still alluded to existing
Episcopacy in disrespectful terms, and advocated the introduction of a
Presbyterian element into ecclesiastical rule. Dioceses, he said, were
too large, and diocesans needed grave and able divines, assessors and
assistants, amongst whom they were entitled to have the first place
and to exercise the chief power. Then turning to the chairman for an
illustration, the lively baronet observed: "Mr. Hyde, yourself are now
in this great committee; Mr. Speaker is in the House the bishop of
our congregation." "You,"--addressing himself to both gentlemen--"are
in yourselves but fellow-members of the same House with us, returned
hither (as we also are) to sit on these benches with us, until by our
election, and by common suffrage, you are incathedrated. Then you
have (and it is fit and necessary that you should have) a precedency
before us and a presidency over us. Notwithstanding this, you are not
diversified into a several and distinct order from us. You must not
swell with that conceit. You (Mr. Chairman and Mr. Speaker) are still
the same members of the same House you were, though raised to a painful
and careful degree among us and above us. I do heartily wish that
we had in every shire of England a bishop such and so regulated for
Church government within that sphere, as Mr. Speaker is bounded in, and
limited by the rules of this House."[201]
[Sidenote: 1641, June.]
The comparison was as amusing as it was pertinent, and fell in with the
prevalent opinion of the Puritan party, that if bishops were retained
in England it must be according to a greatly reduced standard of
authority and power, and one that should resemble the dimensions of the
Episcopal office, as many believed it to have existed in the first and
second centuries of the Christian era.
Before we terminate this chapter, another subject requires notice.
The Long Parliament, at an early period, turned its attention to the
character of the clergy. So many complaints were made against them,
that the committee for religion, in the month of May, divided itself
into sub-committees, whose business it was to investigate clerical
scandals. Their proceedings have been subjected to severe criticism.
It is said by Nalson, that accusations against the best ministers,
by malicious persons, were invited and encouraged, and then admitted
without any proof.[202] But this statement receives contradiction
from the evidence which was laid before the Committees, and is still
preserved; and though some portion of it might be untrustworthy, as is
the case in every kind of judicial trial, other parts of it appear of a
nature not to be gainsayed. In conducting these enquiries the practice
was to receive written evidence, a practice borrowed from the Court
of Arches, where the method of procedure is by libel and affidavit.
Englishmen prefer the _vivâ voce_ testimony of witnesses before a jury;
yet there are not wanting men of judgment, in modern times, who favour
a written statement of fact. At any rate, the Committees could plead
precedent for the course which they pursued, and as the causes which
came before them were ecclesiastical, they did but adopt the usages
of ecclesiastical courts. The constitution of the tribunal, rather
than the mode of trial, is open to exception. There is no vindicating
the former but on the fundamental principle of all revolutions, that
old authorities having become thoroughly corrupt, new ones must be
constituted by the popular power--in such cases the supreme power--to
meet emergencies arising out of previous derangement.
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
Cases which came under the notice of White's committee were published
at a later period in his "Century of Scandalous Ministers."[203] On
comparing that extraordinary volume with the proceedings of the Kent
and Essex Committees, we must be struck with the large proportion
in the former, not merely of allegations touching immorality, but
of charges respecting the foulest and most atrocious crimes. Most
of the complaints before Sir Edward Dering[204] related mainly
to delinquencies of a theological, ecclesiastical, or political
description; and the same may be said of the accusations brought
against the Essex ministers: but on turning over White's pages we
are nauseated with the filthiest accusations and the most abominable
stories. If only half of them be true, he assuredly was supplied with
abundant proofs of the extensive and utter degradation of the clergy.
But some of the narratives seem to us so absurd as almost to defy
belief; yet supposing that they are truthfully related, it is evident
there existed in the parishes of England, at that time, incumbents who
must be regarded as no less thoroughly mad than radically immoral.
[Illustration]