[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
After the Commons had resumed their sittings on the 20th of October,
the difference which had arisen amongst the Puritan members became
very apparent. The very next day, Sir Edward Dering questioned the
legality of the recent order of the House respecting Divine worship;
and the day after that, he indicated a still wider divergence from
the policy of his former political friends. Upon a new bill being
then introduced for excluding Bishops from Parliament--a bill which
was, in fact, a reproduction of the old measure which the Lords had
rejected--the Commons resolved to have a conference with the Upper
House, respecting the thirteen accused prelates, and to request that
the other occupants of the episcopal bench should be prevented from
voting on this particular question, which so vitally affected their
own personal interests. All this so alarmed the member for Kent that
he hastily rose, and delivered a speech indicative of a still more
decided veering toward the conservative point of the compass; for
he went so far as to say that he did not conceive the House to be
competent and fit to pronounce upon questions of Divinity. It seemed
to him, he remarked, a thing unheard of, that soldiers, lawyers, and
merchants should decide points which properly belonged to theologians.
Laymen, he considered, should maintain only those doctrines which
were authorized and established, and should leave the exposition and
advocacy of what was new to a regularly constituted ecclesiastical
assembly, in short, "a synod of Divines chosen by Divines." Whether or
not he was animated in his retrograde course by cheers which came from
the conservative benches, Sir Edward the following day bewailed the
miseries of the Church between "Papism" on the one hand, and "Brownism"
on the other; and instead of dwelling, as he had been wont to do, on
"Puritan sufferings," his sympathies were now entirely bestowed on the
opposite party. He related a story of two clergymen who had preached
thousands of excellent sermons, but who now, like other deserving men,
saw their infected sheep, after long pastoral vigilance, straggling
from the fold, and mingling with the sects. Government, he complained,
had begun to permit a loose liberty of religion; and, amidst varieties
of opinion, and the perils of unity, what, he asked, could be thought
of but a council--"a free, learned, grave, religious synod?"[223] Such
a style of address seems strangely at variance with the speaker's
earlier speeches in this very Parliament, and also with proceedings
which the House had adopted in accordance with his own impetuous
appeals. The course which he now pursued was in decided opposition to
his conduct when he spoke from the gallery of the House on behalf of
the bill for the abolition of Episcopacy; and subsequent proceedings by
this gentleman, in the same new direction, are yet to come under our
notice. But, after all, the lapse of four months had not essentially
altered his character. He was in October only the same versatile and
impetuous, but well-meaning person, which he had shewn himself to be in
May.
[Sidenote: 1641, September.]
Another member, who expressed his alarm at the distractions of the
times, was Mr. Smith, of the Middle Temple. While denouncing the "Book
of Sports" and the persecutions inflicted by the Anglican party, he
deplored existing differences of religious opinion, and besought his
countrymen to worship God with one mind, and not go every one a way
by himself. In the stilted euphuism of the day, he lamented that
uncertainty staggers the unresolved soul, and leads it into such a
labyrinth, that, not knowing where to fix for fear of erring, it
adheres to nothing, and so dies ere it performs that for which it was
made to live. Uniformity in religious worship, he proceeded to say, is
that which pleaseth God, and, if we will thus serve Him, we may expect
His protection; and then, passing over to the constitutional question,
the orator declared both prerogative and liberty to be necessary, and
that like the sun and moon they gave a lustre to the nation, so long
as they walked at proper distances. But, he added, when one ventures
into the other's orbit, like planets in conjunction, they then occasion
a deep eclipse. "What shall be the compass, then, by which these two
must steer? Why, nothing but the same by which they subsist--the law,
which if it might run in the free current of its purity, without being
poisoned by the venomous spirits of ill-affected dispositions, would
so fix the King to his crown that it would make him stand like a
star in the firmament, for the neighbour world to behold and tremble
at."[224] Smith did not plunge into that ecclesiastical reaction which
had carried Dering completely away; but he contended for some measure
of uniformity and for the suppression of increasing sects, whilst in
political matters he recommended a course of moderation.
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
Another individual--far different from this pedantic adviser, and
incapable of the tergiversations of the representative for Kent, though
he is not to be confounded with reckless revolutionists--was still
inflexibly pushing forward those ecclesiastical and political reforms
which he had inaugurated by the blow he struck at Strafford, the patron
and upholder of arbitrary power. Pym supported the new bill against
Bishops, and managed the conference respecting the impeachment of
the obnoxious thirteen prelates, and the prevention of the remaining
occupants of the Bench from voting upon this question. He asked whether
those who had made the hateful canons, who had endeavoured to deprive
the subject of his liberties, and who were accused of sedition, were
fit to be continued as legislators? St. John, the Solicitor General,
and "dark-lantern man," supported Pym, and supplied an erudite legal
argument to shew that bishops did not sit in the Upper House as
representatives of the clergy; and that their right of peerage differed
from the claim of temporal lords--they having no vote in judgments
touching life and death, and their consent not being essential to the
integrity of an Act of Parliament.[225]
[Sidenote: 1641, October.]
Change and reaction went on. There had long been much talk about some
"Grand Remonstrance," and a committee had been appointed as soon
as Parliament assembled, to draw up such a document. In April the
committee had been directed to collect a list of grievances, and on
the 22nd of November the long delayed paper came before the House,
to be "briskly debated." This remarkable production deals largely
with ecclesiastical affairs; and the intimate connection between the
religion and the politics of the times is apparent throughout its
various contents. In a series of numbered propositions, amounting
altogether to 206, the history of arbitrary government is carefully
traced from the beginning of Charles' reign; religious grievances are
made distinct and prominent; complaints appear of Papists, bishops,
and courtiers, who had aimed at suppressing the purity and power of
religion, and who had cherished Arminian sentiments; prelates and
the rest of the clergy are depicted as triumphing in the degradation
of painful and learned ministers; and the High Commission Court is
compared to the Romish Inquisition. The vexatiousness of episcopal
tribunals shares in the general censure, and the exile and depression
of Puritans are noticed with the deepest sorrow;--preaching up the
prerogative, sympathy with Papists, superstitious innovations, the late
canons, the toleration of Papists, and the permission of a Papal nuncio
at court, are all deplored as very great evils, whilst an opinion is
expressed that there is little hope of amendment so long as Bishops
and recusant Lords remain numerous, and continue to misrepresent the
designs of the patriots.[226]
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
Yet it is affirmed that there exists no intention of loosing the golden
reins of discipline, and of leaving to private persons and particular
congregations the right to take up what Divine service they pleased.
Horror respecting a general toleration is plainly confessed, and
the remonstrants advocate Conformity "to that order which the laws
enjoin according to the Word of God," even while they are desirous
of unburdening the conscience from superstitious ceremonies and are
taking away the monuments of idolatry. A general synod is suggested as
the remedy for ecclesiastical evils, and care is advised to be taken
for the advancement of learning, and the preaching of the Gospel. The
two Universities are referred to as fountains of knowledge which should
be made clear and pure.
The sting of the Remonstrance is found in its head, not in its tail. In
the petition prefixed, the King is asked to concur with his subjects
in depriving the bishops of their votes in Parliament, in abridging
their power over the clergy and people, in staying the oppression of
religion, in uniting loyal Protestants together against disaffected
Papists, and in removing unnecessary ceremonies, which were a burden
to weak and scrupulous consciences. Such requests were opposed to
his Majesty's ideas of the constitution of the Church, though the
remonstrants were prepared to rebut the charge of there being anything
whatever revolutionary in their proposals and requests.
Looking at the current of Parliamentary debates for the last twelve
months, the Remonstrance may be regarded as presenting to us the
sentiments of the patriotic party. Sir Edward Dering, in May,
had gone beyond this remonstrance, far beyond it; but Sir Edward
Dering, in November, though the same character that he ever was,
had become another kind of politician. The same remarks will apply
to others. He now disputed some of the statements in this famous
political instrument, vindicated several of the accused bishops and
clergy, protested against the spoliation of ecclesiastical estates,
and intimated his apprehension of the perilous consequences which
would follow the changes now set on foot. Other members pronounced
the measure to be unnecessary and unreasonable, because several of
the grievances now complained of were already redressed; and they
declared that the King, after his concessions, ought not on his return
from Scotland to be received by his loyal subjects with ungrateful
reproaches.
[Sidenote: 1641, November.]
More was lying underneath the Remonstrance than appeared upon the
surface. Looking at the character of the King, his obvious want of
sincerity, and his manifest intention to recover what he had lost of
arbitrary power whenever he should have the opportunity; considering
also the reinvigorated spirit of the party opposed to constitutional
reforms; further, taking into account the reaction going on, which
had withdrawn from the remonstrants certain active confederates;
and pondering, too, the unsettled and disturbed condition of the
country at large--the authors of this important measure foresaw that
matters could not rest where they were, and that more must be done,
or everything would be lost. Breaches made in the Constitution by its
enemies, rendered extraordinary efforts necessary for the preservation
of popular freedom. Calculating, therefore, on further and more serious
struggles, the advanced party determined to make their instrument
in question a manifesto, to which they might afterwards appeal in
self-justification when that day of battle should come, which appeared
to them then, both so likely and so near. This must be remembered, or
the Remonstrance will not be understood.
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
Regarded by its supporters as their palladium, it was strenuously
opposed by courtiers and reactionists. The debate upon the measure,
which took place on Monday, November the 22nd, lasted beyond midnight.
After lights had been brought in, the members--amidst the gloom of St.
Stephen's chapel and the glimmer of a few candles--continued hotly
to dispute respecting this great question, with looks of sternest
resolution; very distinct to us even now, although upon the darkness
made visible, there also rest the shadows of two centuries and a
half. Puritans and High Churchmen that night uttered sharp words
against each other, as they stood face to face and foot to foot in
conflict. A division arose on the clause for reducing the power of
Bishops, when 161 voted for it and 147 against it. On the grand
division soon afterwards, respecting the Remonstrance itself, 159
voted that it should pass, 148 took the opposite side. This gave but a
scant majority. Immediately on the announcement of the result, there
arose a discussion as to the printing of the document--a discussion
which became more violent than the former ones.[227] The printing of
the Remonstrance at once, prior to its being adopted by the Upper
House, and prior to its being presented to the Sovereign, could not
but be regarded as a step indicative of the elements of the English
Constitution being thrown into a state of lamentable derangement. Hyde
declared that he was sure the printing of it would be mischievous, and
also unlawful: and then proceeded to assert for himself the right of
protest, which, in a member of the Lower House, was an act as irregular
as even the printing of the Remonstrance could be. Up started Jeffrey
Palmer, "a man of great reputation," and likewise claimed that he
might protest "Protest, protest," rung in wrathful tones from other
lips; and some members, in the storm of their excitement, were on the
point of bringing dishonour upon themselves and upon the House. "We had
catched at each other's locks," says Sir Philip Warwick, "and sheathed
our swords in each other's bowels, had not the sagacity and calmness of
Mr. Hampden, by a short speech, prevented it, and led us to defer our
angry debate until next morning."[228]
[Sidenote: 1641, November.]
In corroboration of this general statement, and for the filling up of
this graphic outline, happily we can turn to the journal of D'Ewes, the
Puritan, who, like Warwick, was present, but who took the other side in
the controversy. In answer to a question, as to who claimed the right
of protest, there were loud cries of "All! All!!" This reporter, who
took part with the patriots, goes on to say: "And some waved their hats
over their heads, and others took their swords in their scabbards out
of their belts, and held them by the pummels in their hands, setting
the lower part on the ground, so as if God had not prevented it, there
was very great danger that mischief might have been done. All those
who cried, 'All! all!' and did the other particulars, were of the
number of those that were against the Remonstrance."[229] Whether or
not D'Ewes was right in attributing these acts of warlike defiance
_exclusively_ to his opponents--in the faint rays of the candle-light
he could not have seen very distinctly all which was going on--he
certainly substantiates the account given by Warwick of extensive
violent confusion, a Parliamentary tempest in short, calmed by the
wisdom and moderation of John Hampden. Before the Commons broke up,
on that memorable night, it was resolved by 124 against 101, that the
declaration should "not be printed without the particular order of the
House," a conclusion which left the publication of the Remonstrance
open for the present.
[Sidenote: _Debates by the Commons._]
"The chimes of St. Margaret's were striking two in the morning," as
Oliver Cromwell came down stairs, and, according to rumour, recorded by
Clarendon, met Lord Falkland, and whispered in his ear, "that if the
Remonstrance had been rejected, he would have sold all he had the next
morning, and never have seen England more; and he knew there were many
other honest men of the same resolution."[230]
[Illustration]