ELEVEN YEARS OF ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT.--1629-1640.
ΚΡΕΩΝ. ἄλλῳ γὰρ ἤ μοι χρή γε τῆσδ᾽ ἄρχειν χθονός;
ΑΙΜΩΝ. πόλις γὰρ οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ἥτις ἀνδρός ἐσθ᾽ ἑνός.
ΚΡΕΩΝ. οὐ τοῦ κρατοῦντος ἡ πόλις νομίζεται;
ΑΙΜΩΝ. καλῶς ἐρήμης γ᾽ ἄν σὺ γῆς ἄρχοις μόνος.
CREON. For my behoof I have right to rule this land.
HAEMON. It is no state where all belongs to one.
CREON. Is not the state the sovereign’s property?
HAEMON. A manless state how grand to rule--alone!--Soph. Ant. 739.
%CHARLES AND WENTWORTH.%
Charles had now made up his mind to govern without the aid of
Parliament, and thus raise himself into the position of an absolute
monarch. His education and his character had alike tended to blind
his mind to the fact that, from the subjects’ point of view, such an
intention was criminal. Princes rarely converse with their fellows
on an equal footing, or hear their own opinions and actions freely
criticized. They are, therefore, apt to grow up prejudiced.
♦Charles’ education and character.♦ Charles was especially unfortunate
in this respect. In James’ court, no man could maintain a footing who
was not obsequious enough to let his own opinion follow that of his
Majesty. The divine right by which kings rule, the superiority of the
prerogative to the law, the subject’s duty of passive obedience, were
household words to the young prince. His social training was as bad as
his political; the companions amongst whom he was thrown, were not only
obsequious but immoral, and when he became king, his father’s influence
lived on in one of the most worthless of his favourites. Edward I.,
indeed, a king whose only thought was for his people’s “security under
fixed laws and customs” yet failed in inspiring his son with any such
noble aims, though he banished the evil companions who were bent on
marring that son’s mind. But Charles was in all points a prince far
superior to Edward II. Had he been trained by a father endowed with
the noble qualities of Edward I., he might have run a peaceful course
and lived and died in accord with his virtues. Charles’ virtues, in
fact, were his own, and displayed themselves in spite of his education.
His manners and his tastes were refined, and his enemies were never
able to deny that he was both a good husband and a good father. On the
other hand, nature had bestowed on him no special gifts to counteract
the evil effects of his political training. His character was cold
and unbending, and he was without any generous sympathies, that might
have brought him to recognize good in cause or man opposed to his own
fixed ideas. Obstinate and opinionated when he came to the throne at
twenty-four, so he remained to the last day of his life; no amount of
experience proved sufficient to teach him the necessity of yielding to
public opinion, or even of listening with patience to arguments that
offended his high notions of what was due to himself as a king. With
such an education and such a character, he was born in an evil time
for himself. He had found a minister who could put his wishes into
act, for Wentworth set himself, with all the energy of his nature, to
the support of arbitrary government. Having shared in the counsels
of the patriots, and knowing their deep-rooted love of liberty, this
clear-sighted counsellor never deceived himself into thinking that
any half measures were sufficient for success. On the Continent, many
instances had proved that a standing army was the surest support to an
arbitrary throne.
♦Advice of Wentworth too good for Charles.♦ With a fleet only and
without such an army, Wentworth would say, a government had but ‘one
leg to stand upon.’ To secure an army he must have money. At present
much of the monies taken from the pockets of the people passed into
those of courtiers and their dependents, instead of enriching the
royal exchequer. It was easier to save money than to get it and
Wentworth, therefore, advocated economy in administration, in fact,
the true financial policy of getting money’s worth for money given.
But Wentworth’s advice was too good and his energy too great for his
master. The minister was to be like the dwarf in the fairy tale, he was
not to prescribe prudence but to save his employer from the results of
imprudence. Advancing Wentworth as he did, Charles shrank from opposing
the wishes of his wife and curtailing the perquisites of his friends.
Under these conditions, the king’s government might be violent, it
could never be strong.
Wentworth speedily concluded peace with France (April, 1629) and Spain
(Nov., 1630). Experience had already proved that it was impossible to
carry on war without applying to Parliament for aid. To provide for the
expenses of the court and government was no easy matter, even when the
country was at peace.
%COURT AND QUEEN.%
♦Character of Henrietta Maria.♦ Charles’ vain and passionate wife,
Henrietta Maria, who in an ill-temper could dash her hands through the
panes of a window, or turn a whole company out of her presence with one
of her royal scowls, was not a queen to be easily guided by a minister.
With some, however, her smiles were as potent as her frowns, and she
soon won an ascendancy over her husband equal to that which Buckingham
once exercised. To her, happiness meant a gay life at Whitehall, with a
constant series of balls and masques, so that the expenses of the court
rose rapidly, and soon reached sums far larger than those considered
enormous in the time of James.
♦Charles’ court and government corrupt.♦ Delighting, as she did, in the
exercise of power and patronage, it was to the queen, and not to the
king, or to Wentworth, that courtiers and their dependents applied, in
order to obtain lucrative monopolies, offices, or pensions. The court
offices were, indeed, regarded as a sort of booty. Fixed salaries there
were none; but fees and perquisites were numerous, and every man’s hand
was open to a bribe. There was no shame felt in the matter. The Earl of
Dorset, a member of council, and a judge in the Star Chamber, openly
declared that he thought it no crime for a courtier to receive a reward
from one for whom he procured a favour.
Out of the royal revenue[34] had to be provided, not only money
sufficient to satisfy the desires of the court, but also to keep up the
navy, to provide for the repairs of castles and forts, the expenses
of ambassadors, and the salaries of officers of the executive. Since
Parliamentary grants were out of the question and the ordinary revenue
did not nearly meet the demand, a raid was made upon the property of
all classes of society.
%DESPERATE FINANCE.%
♦Money raised by illegal means.♦ The nobility and gentry suffered
as much as any. Holders of land on the borders of royal forests
were accused of having encroached on the king’s domains; the judges
received orders to ferret out the weak points of titles, and when
the cases came into court, to intimidate jurors into giving verdicts
in the king’s favour. Adverse verdicts entailed fines of ruinous
amounts, and the legal rule that no prescription holds good against
the crown was carried so far that even lands held by a title of three
hundred years were reclaimed as royal property. By these means, the
bounds of Rockingham Forest were increased from six miles to sixty.
But ‘depression of the nobility,’ says Bacon, ‘may make a king more
absolute, but less safe.’ These, and similar encroachments, only helped
to cement the alliance between peers and commoners.
There was an old feudal custom, long fallen into disuse, that on the
accession of a new king, all who held land of him by knights’ service,
worth above the paltry sum of £20 per annum, should receive the order
of knighthood, or pay a fine. Fines were now exacted from noblemen
and gentlemen in all parts of the country, for having neglected to be
knighted when Charles came to the throne. The fines levied were three
or four times the amount at which the delinquents would have been rated
for subsidies. The Catholics in return for their support were allowed
to compound at an easier rate.[35]
♦Old laws raked up.♦ The poor were also attacked. A statute, passed
during the reign of Elizabeth, requiring that cottagers should have
four acres of ground attached to their dwellings, had probably never
been enforced, had certainly long since fallen into disuse; the poor
householders were now held responsible, and complained that they were
“mightily vexed,” for commissioners were sent twenty miles round
London to search out and fine those who had disobeyed the statute. The
commissioners employed were “needy men of no fame, prisoners out of the
Fleet,” whose services, of course, could be cheaply bought; the money
they collected mostly went to enrich two lords, who had received as a
favour from the king, leave to put the commission into execution.
If no old law could be raked up, Charles would act by proclamation.
For instance, he forbade by proclamation the building of new houses,
in or about London. Builders either bought licences, or else ran the
risk of being called to account and punished for disregarding the
proclamation.[36] Thus one man was fined £1000, and ordered to pull
down forty-two dwelling-houses, stables, and coach-houses, by a certain
time, on pain of paying a second £1000. Any classes who refused such
black mail were severely dealt with. The innkeepers of London were
inhibited from dressing any meat, because they declined to pay an
excise duty on wine, when levied by the sole authority of the Council.
They were soon glad to compound.
%MONOPOLIES.%
♦Monopolies.♦ As a further means of raising money, the king granted or
sold patents for the exclusive sale or manufacture of certain articles.
The monopolists formed companies, of which all traders or manufacturers
were forced to become members and obey the regulations. By these means
taxes were laid on articles of every-day use and consumption, such
as salt, corn, lace, tobacco, barrels, linen, cloth; but most of the
money so raised, while impoverishing the nation by raising the price of
all necessaries, enriched, not the king, but his courtiers and their
dependents. For instance, out of every £12 raised by the monopoly of
wine, only £1 reached the exchequer, the other £11 stopping by the way
amongst the vintners and the owners of the patent. If the companies
sold bad articles, there was no redress. The poor women in London
complained that the soap made by the company burnt the linen, scalded
their fingers, and was full of tallow and lime. The soap-boilers were
Catholics, and got the queen’s laundress to subscribe to the goodness
of the soap, but “she tells her Majesty she does not wash her linen
with any other than Castile soap, and the truth is, most of the ladies
that have subscribed have their linen washed with Castile soap.” The
Lord Mayor, whom the women followed about in the streets, clamorously
petitioning against the new soap, received a sharp reproof at the
Council Board for giving too soft answers. The monopolies alienated
London, which might have supplied the sinews of war to the king, as it
eventually did for the Parliament. It was noted that “discontinuance
of Parliaments brings up this kind of grain, which commonly is blasted
when they come.”
%PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT.%
Besides being extortionate and arbitrary, the government was often
cruel; and the common law judges, instead of administering justice
impartially between subject and sovereign, allowed themselves to
be made the instruments of oppression. Upon the dissolution of the
last Parliament, several members of the Commons were imprisoned on
warrants signed by the king, charging them with having stirred up
sedition.
♦Members of late Parliament committed illegally to prison.♦ Their
counsel argued that sedition was a bailable offence, and that,
therefore, they ought to be let free on bail. The judges, however,
following the king’s instructions, required the prisoners, not only
to find bail for the present charge, but securities for their good
behaviour in the future. As they refused to comply with these demands,
which would have kept them under the thumb of the court and its judges,
they were ordered back into prison.
These country leaders, who led the opposition in Parliament, risked
much--property, liberty, life. Sir John Eliot, being of too noble
a nature to be wrought upon either by corruption or intimidation,
naturally became the victim of a government that always required
submission before it relaxed its hold. He had long since been obliged
to give away his property in trust for his children, to preserve
himself and his family from ruin. An information in the King’s Bench
was now brought against Hollis and Valentine for raising a tumult in
the Commons on the last day of the session, and against Eliot, for
words spoken in the House. The three pleaded that the offences with
which they were charged, being committed in Parliament, were not
punishable in any other place.
♦Judgment of King’s Bench on Eliot, Hollis, Valentine.♦ The most
important of all privileges of Parliament, freedom of speech concerning
matters of Parliamentary debate, was here called into question; and
the prisoners’ counsel brought forward many precedents to show that
the liberties and privileges of Parliament could only be determined in
Parliament, and not by any inferior court. The King’s Bench, however,
decided that it had a right to judge the alleged offences, though
committed in Parliament, and condemned the defendants to be imprisoned
during the king’s pleasure; Eliot to pay a fine to the king of £2000,
Hollis 1000 marks,[37] Valentine £500 (Feb. 12, 1630).[38]
%DEATH OF ELIOT.%
In the course of twelve months’ time, the other prisoners either
consented to find sureties for good behaviour, or paid their fines, or
were allowed to go at large on some excuse or other. Sir John Eliot
alone refused to make any concession of principle, and was still
closely confined in the Tower. Consumption attacked him, and his
doctors prescribed air and exercise, but he was not allowed to pass out
of the walls of his prison. “I am now,” he writes, “where candlelight
may be suffered, but scarce fire;” and this, though his lodgings had
been changed to a dark gloomy chamber.
♦End of Sir John Eliot.♦ He sent a petition to the king, informing him
that he had fallen into a dangerous disease, and praying to be allowed
to take some fresh air. Charles replied that the petition was not
humble enough. Sir John sent a second by the hand of his son. “I am
heartily sorry,” he wrote, “I have displeased your Majesty, and beseech
you once again to command your judges to set me at liberty, that when I
have recovered my health, I may return back to my prison.” But no order
for release came: and the Lieutenant of the Tower offered to present a
third petition with his own hand, and made no doubt but that Charles
would grant it if Sir John would only write so as to acknowledge his
fault, and humbly pray for pardon. “I thank you, sir,” replied Eliot,
“for your friendly advice, but my spirits are grown feeble and faint,
which when it shall please God to restore unto their former vigour, I
will take it into consideration.” He did not mean to use the language
of a culprit, and purchase his own life by betraying the cause of
the nation. Death soon released him while still in the prime of his
life (æt. 40). His son sent a petition to the king, begging that his
father’s body might be buried in his own county of Cornwall. Charles
wrote under the petition these words: “‘Let Sir John Eliot’s body
be buried in the church of that parish where he died.’ And so he was
buried in the Tower.” Such was the fate of one of the purest-hearted of
patriots (1632).
%CHARACTER OF ELIOT.%
His history shows in an eminent degree the nobleness of the leaders
of the opposition and the constitutional rectitude of their aims:
with a true loyalty to his king, whom he tried in vain to urge into
right courses, he won the leadership of the Commons, not more by his
vivid eloquence than by the single-minded devotion of his character.
There was a true pathos in his stoical bearing under suffering. In
the solitude of his prison he bade his friends, ‘for their own sakes
forbear coming to visit him.’ Dying in the Tower he appealed to his
son at college not to let him ‘receive by any misconduct of his that
wound which no enemy could give--sorrow and affliction of the mind.’
The limit he gently put to the intercessions of the friendly governor
reminds us of the scene in Plato when Socrates put Crito’s appeal aside
by telling him that he heard the laws of his land remonstrating with
him ‘to think of right first, and of life and children afterwards.’
Thus, unlike the Royalist victim of the Revolution, he departed ‘as a
sufferer and not a doer of evil.’[39] His country did not lose by his
adherence to principle. In later times when the cause of liberty was in
peril its defenders thought of Eliot and fought on.[40]
%ILLEGAL COURTS.%
♦Illegal courts. Court of the North.♦ Illegal judgments were now
the curse of the nation. Where the common law courts could find no
crime, the illegal courts came into action. North of the Humber,
the Court of the North, of which Wentworth was president, took the
place of the Star Chamber in the south. Its origin was even more
questionable. Henry VIII., after an insurrection in 1536, issued a
commission to the Archbishop of York and several gentlemen of the
north, to examine into the grounds of the disorder, and to punish
offenders in riots and conspiracies. But long after all traces of the
insurrection had disappeared, the court remained, and its authority
was gradually extended. The people dwelling north of the Humber
complained that they were shut out from the protection of the common
law courts at Westminster, and that their personal liberty and property
were at the mercy of arbitrary judges, who sentenced according to
their discretion. While the Court of the North was thus accused
of encroaching even upon the civil jurisdiction of the Westminster
courts, the Star Chamber was chiefly concerned with criminal cases,
such as forgery, perjury, riot, libel, conspiracy, and every kind of
misdemeanour. It adjudged any punishment short of death, as pillory,
whipping, branding, cutting off the ears, fine, and imprisonment.
The customs were levied with rigour, though they had never been granted
to Charles by statute.
♦Sentence of Star Chamber on Chambers.♦ Chambers, one of several
merchants whose goods had been seized for refusing to pay illegal
duties, vented his indignation by saying before the Council Board,
“that the merchants in no part of the world were so screwed and wrung
as in England; that in Turkey they had more encouragement.” The judges
of the common law courts could have found no law by which to inflict a
heavy punishment for a few hasty words. The judges of the Star Chamber,
guided in their judgment by their discretion, declared the expressions
used were likely to make the people believe that Charles’ happy
government was a Turkish tyranny, and sentenced Chambers to pay a fine
of £2000, and to sign a submission. Chambers wrote under the submission
these words: “I do utterly abhor and detest the contents of this
submission, and never, till death, will acknowledge any part thereof.”
He was refused by the judges his habeas corpus, and remained a prisoner
many years.
%WENTWORTH IN ENGLAND.%
Wentworth, as the councillor who possessed most influence in the
government, incurred the hatred of all lovers of liberty, without
gaining the friendship of the queen or the court.
♦Administration of Wentworth and Laud.♦ Regardless of the interests of
courtiers and their dependents, he resolutely endeavoured, as far as
he could obtain Charles’ support, to govern with a view to increase
the power of the crown. This administration required the surrender
of illicit gains, and the punishment of criminals, however close
their connection with men in high places. While, therefore, its vices
incurred the odium of the country, its virtues incurred the odium of
the court. However much a Somerset or a Buckingham may have been hated
by rival aspirants to royal favour, it was the men who were hated
and not their régime. Under them, so long as the interests of the
favourite remained untouched, free licence was given to all to make
their fortunes by the first means that came to hand. The court and
government of James had been thoroughly corrupt. The corruption of the
courtiers under James had continued under Charles. But, where free rein
was given him, Wentworth thus, not unaptly, describes the character
of his administration: “Where I found a crown, a church, and a people
spoiled, I could not imagine to redeem them from under the pressure
with gracious smiles and gentle looks; it would cost warmer water than
so.... True it was, indeed, I knew no other rule to govern by but by
reward and punishment; and I must profess that where I found a person
well and entirely set for the service of my master, I should lay my
hand under his foot, and add to his respect and power all I might; and
that where I found the contrary, I should not dandle him in my arms,
or soothe him in his untoward humour, but if he came in my reach, so
far as honour and justice would warrant me, I must knock him soundly
over the knuckles.”[41] In Yorkshire, as president of the Court of
the North, by preventing the proceeds of his trenchant measures from
being filched by petty tax-gatherers, he succeeded in raising the
royal revenue in the four northern counties to four or five times its
previous amount. In London, Laud was also a zealous servant of the
crown, and though ruthlessly trampling on recalcitrant merchants who
refused to pay illegal customs, would try to remedy abuses and give ear
to complaints, if trade were in any way injured for the advantage of a
courtier.
%WENTWORTH IN IRELAND.%
♦Wentworth, Lord Deputy of Ireland.♦ In the year 1632 Wentworth was
appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland. During the reigns of Elizabeth and
James I., Ireland had for the first time been brought into complete
subjection to English rule. English laws and English customs had been
introduced into every province, and the Protestant Church established
in place of the Catholic. The population was divided into three parts:
1st, the native Irish; 2nd, the old English settlers in Dublin and the
neighbouring counties of Kildare, Louth, and the two Meaths, which
constituted ‘the English pale’; 3rd, new English and Scotch settlers
who had been planted upon lands taken from Irish rebels by Elizabeth
and James.
♦State of Ireland.♦ The Irish and old English settlers, forming a
large majority of the population, were Catholics; the new settlers
Protestants. Though the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity had been
enacted by an Irish Parliament, they were not fully put into force,
because it was hardly possible to fine nonconformists, when ‘in six
parishes scarce six came to church.’ Those, however, who refused to
take the oath of supremacy when tendered, were shut out from holding
any office in the State, or even from practising as lawyers. The people
were ignorant and untaught. The Protestant clergy could not speak the
same language as their flocks, and, while living with idle hands in
a false position, had won for themselves an indifferent character.
The Catholic bishops exercised far more power than the Protestant;
the great lords, whether English or Irish, oppressed their tenants;
the ministers of justice took bribes; the officers employed by the
government, and the Protestant clergy, extorted large fees on every
possible pretext; an undisciplined army was scattered over the country,
living at free quarters; pirates from Dunkirk, Algiers, Spain, the
Bay of Biscay, so infested the coasts, that the people were plundered
in every creek; while the captains of the king’s ships refused to
move against them, alleging want of victuals, though the crews--‘mere
rabbles of disorderly people’--did the country more injury than the
pirates themselves; meantime merchant vessels were run aground, rifled
and burnt in sight of Dublin Castle; there was little trade; the taxes
did not pay the expenses of the government, so that there was a debt of
£100,000 owing by the crown.[42]
Wentworth was probably sent there because fair promises had been made
to the Irish, which it was disagreeable to fulfil. The king hoped
Wentworth’s genius would keep Ireland quiet; he could not yet have
hoped it would forge Ireland into a weapon to use against English
liberty.[43]
♦Wentworth’s administration.♦ Wentworth set himself to work to rule
despotically, but after he had put first his master’s interest,
he showed some regard for that of the people entrusted to him. No
corruption was allowed; the fees received by the officers, high and
low, in the government employ, were inquired into; judges were not
allowed to act as mere instruments of great lords’ oppression: the
army was remodelled; discipline enforced; Wentworth saw every single
man himself, though it numbered nearly 4000; the soldier paid for all
he took; captains were made to understand that for the future they
must perform garrison duty, must drill their troops, and provide them
with good arms and horses, instead of appropriating the funds for
their own uses. They soon found that the lord deputy was not the sort
of man to jest with; they had either to do as they were told, or leave
the service. The navy was unfortunately independent of his control. In
Wentworth’s own words, it grieved his heart that he had no power over
the Admiralty. His grief indeed was no matter for wonder. The ship that
was conveying over from England his wardrobe, furniture, and plate,
was seized on the passage by that same Captain Nutt whom James I. and
Secretary Calvert in 1623 let loose a second time upon the world.[44]
As it was, to protect Dublin harbour from pirates, he fitted out a
vessel at his own charge. He encouraged trade, but only so far as he
thought the increase of Irish trade not detrimental to that of England.
Thus in order to ensure to English manufacturers a readier sale for
their cloths from the absence of Irish competition, he actually
destroyed the woollen trade in Ireland. At the same time he introduced
into Ulster the manufacture of linen from flax, erected looms, brought
workmen from France and Flanders, and sent the first cargo of linen
to Spain at his own risk. For this prohibitive policy in the supposed
interest of England, Wentworth deserves no special blame. It is a blot
attaching quite as much to the character of English parliaments as to
that of English kings. What was special in that policy now, was the
length to which it was carried. No deputy before Wentworth had been
in possession at once of the necessary energy, determination, and
disregard of human suffering, to uproot one branch of industry in the
vain hope of seeing another spring up in a moment. Notwithstanding
this suicidal act, the vigour of the government soon produced striking
results; the debts of the crown were paid off, and in four years
the customs were raised from £1200 to £40,000 and were still on the
increase.
Yet the Irish felt no gratitude to the deputy, for if he protected
them from the oppression of the government officers, and of their own
aristocracy, he laid their property open to the rapacity of the king,
and their personal freedom to his own vengeance.
The Irish had been required by Elizabeth and James to surrender
their lands, in order to receive them back to hold by feudal tenure.
The grants, by which the land had been restored, ought to have been
enrolled in the Court of Chancery. But though the Irish of Connaught
had paid £3000 for the purpose, the enrolment had in many cases
been neglected, and James’ council had advised him on this pretext
to forfeit the whole province, and to plant English Protestants on
the lands thus taken from their rightful owners. When Charles came to
the throne, the Irish, in terror of this project, proposed to support
an army of 5000 men for three years, in return for fifty-three royal
concessions or “graces.” Of these the most important were, that the
inhabitants of Connaught should be allowed to enrol their grants; that
the crown should lay claim to no estates that had been held for sixty
years; and that an Irish Parliament should be held to confirm these
graces. Charles had agreed, signed the graces, and promised that a
Parliament should be summoned to confirm them.
%IRISH PARLIAMENT.%
♦Wentworth obtains a subsidy from Irish Parliament.♦ This Parliament
was at last summoned by Wentworth, after the army had been supported
for four, instead of for three years, the time originally agreed upon.
It would seem hardly credible that neither the king nor his deputy,
after having received the money, should have had the smallest intention
of performing their part of the compact. Yet such was the case; it
was only with great reluctance that Charles allowed a Parliament,
“that hydra, cunning as malicious,” to be summoned at all. Wentworth,
however, was confident that he should be able to manage it, by playing
off the jealousies of Protestants against Catholics, and of Catholics
against Protestants, and succeeded so well, that he persuaded the
Parliament to grant the king six subsidies, giving the members to
understand that after they had proved themselves such dutiful subjects,
the king would be sure to grant them their desires. Never were men more
deceived. The perfidious deputy, when sure of the money, turned round
and told the Commons that most of the graces were prejudicial to the
crown, and that it was his duty to beseech his Majesty not to grant
them. They were helpless. A law called Poyning’s Law had been passed in
1495, by which no bills could be introduced into the Irish Parliament
except such as had been first allowed by the king and the English
council. Hence the Irish House of Commons was not nearly so independent
in action as the English, and the Parliament was dissolved without the
most important graces having been passed into law.
%WENTWORTH IN IRELAND.%
♦Lands in Connaught forfeited to crown.♦ The consequences were soon
experienced. Wentworth travelled west into Connaught, and inquired into
defective titles (1635). The Council Chamber, an arbitrary court,
answering the same purpose as the Star Chamber in England, fined the
first jurors who declared against the crown £4000 each. After this
example, little resistance was made. Some lands were declared to belong
to the crown, that had been held for 300 years, and landowners were
glad to be allowed to pay a rent to the king for part of their lands,
and to give up the rest for him to bestow on new Protestant settlers.
This attack upon their property was far from being all that the Irish
suffered. The deputy’s pride and vindictiveness were unparalleled.
Any who offended he marked out for destruction, and hunted down. Lord
Mountnorris, vice-treasurer in Ireland, and a captain in the navy, was
suddenly summoned, with several other officers in Dublin, to attend
the deputy at a council of war (12th Dec., 1635). Mountnorris found
himself accused of having said, six months before, at a dinner table,
that a gentleman, struck by Wentworth, “had a brother that would not
have taken such a blow.” The court, composed mainly of councillors,
then and there, in the presence of the deputy, sentenced the victim to
be deprived of all office, and to be shot dead. The latter part of the
sentence Wentworth only intended to be passed, not executed; the former
he caused to be put in force, and prided himself on thus having humbled
a man towards whom he had for a long time felt ill will.
♦Laws against Catholics not enforced.♦ His ecclesiastical policy was
somewhat less severe. Though the endowments of churches had been
given to Protestant bishops and clergymen, every parish was allowed
its priest and its mass-house, simply because Wentworth did not feel
himself strong enough to put the Act of Uniformity into full force.
When the English should be more thickly settled, when there should
be in the country an army composed entirely of Protestants, strong
enough to crush rebellion, he looked forward to forcing every Papist to
conform to the Protestant worship.
Meantime the success of his Irish government did not lessen the number
of the deputy’s enemies at home. The queen and her tribe looked upon
Ireland as a country where offices ought to be bestowed, as in England,
upon her Majesty’s recommendation. Wentworth begged the king that
no office might be given away without the deputy’s consent. Charles
agreed, but ungenerously objected to make the denials himself. “You,”
he wrote, “must take upon you the refusing part.” The disappointed
courtiers displayed their spite by exclaiming against the deputy’s
pride and tyranny. True, they said, he refused to take bribes, but
he was none the worse off, for he never gave any, as others refused
his presents. If Wentworth’s enemies in London might be believed,
Mountnorris was actually shot, and people could even tell where the
bullets had entered his body.
In spite of the great financial success of the Irish administration,
the revenue raised in that country could not possibly be made to
provide for the expenses of the English government. Hence although
Wentworth carefully husbanded his surplus funds, and although so
many illegal modes of taxation were resorted to in England, poverty
prevented Charles from rendering the Protestant cause on the continent
any effectual support either by arms or by negotiation.
%THIRTY YEARS’ WAR.%
♦Thirty Years’ War.♦ The Thirty Years’ War was still raging. The
Emperor Ferdinand II., after his armies had overrun the north of
Germany, nourished hopes, not only of rooting the Protestant doctrines
out of Germany, but also of reducing the Catholic princes to dependence
upon Austria (1628-1630). But at the moment when his power seemed
greatest, the Protestants were saved by the break up of the Catholic
camp. The Catholic princes of Germany feared they might lose their own
independence if they suffered the emperor to overpower their Protestant
fellows. The pope himself, Urban VIII., alarmed at the interference of
Austria in Italy, joined the side of the French, and thus indirectly
aided the Protestants. Finally Richelieu, still the chief minister of
Louis XIII., eager as his successors for a divided Germany, called on
Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, to help in restoring the German
princes to their ancient rights, by overthrowing the tyranny of the
emperor.
Gustavus, with a small army of 30,000 men, defeated the Imperial
general, Tilly, at Leipzig (Sept., 1631), and penetrated into the heart
of Bavaria. At Lutzen he defeated the celebrated Wallenstein, and lost
his own life (Nov., 1632). After his death every nation engaged was
fighting for some special interest, and the war continued for seventeen
years with varied success. Frederic, prince of the palatinate, died
in 1632, still an exile from his dominions, but leaving his son to
continue his claims.
The course of Gustavus was followed in England with deep interest.
English and Scotch volunteers, after serving in the Swedish armies,
returned home to note with grief that while they had been fighting in
defence of the Protestant faith and political rights, their own country
was falling subject to the sway of a religion that differed little
from the Romish, and of a tyranny in the State that threatened to make
government by Parliaments a thing of the past. Wentworth’s influence,
however, foiled the war-party; “Good my lord,” he wrote to Laud in
1637, “if it be not too late, use your best to divert us from this war
[with Austria]; it will necessarily put the king into all high ways
possible, else will he not be able to subsist under the charge of it,
and if these fail the next will be but the sacrificing those who have
been his ministers.”
%SHIP-MONEY.%
♦Coasts of Britain infested by pirates.♦ Not only, however, was Charles
too poor to aid the Protestant cause, he could not even defend the
coasts of his own kingdom. Dutch and French fishing vessels encroached
on the English fisheries, refusing even to ‘vail their flags’ to the
king’s ships, while pirates from Algiers made descents upon the coasts
of both England and Ireland, and carried off captives to be slaves to
the Mussulman.
♦Ship-money.♦ To raise a fleet, Charles ventured on a great strain of
his prerogative. A lawyer, Noy, had found in the Tower some old writs,
calling on the ports and maritime counties to provide ships for the
public service. It was suggested by Finch, chief justice of the Common
Pleas, that the same demand should now be made, not only on ports and
maritime places, but also on inland counties, and that instead of
causing each county to provide so many ships, a general tax under the
name of ship-money, should be levied on land and property, in the same
manner as a subsidy granted in Parliament.
People wondered, and even dependents of Wentworth ventured to express
their dislike to the new imposition. “I would rather,” one wrote,
“pay ten subsidies in Parliament, than ten shillings this new-old-way
of dead Noy’s.” None, however, had yet resisted illegal demands with
impunity, and no immoderate opposition being offered, Charles gained
yearly a sum of about £200,000 by this tax. He employed, indeed, the
money on the object for which it was nominally raised. The Dutch
fishers one year bought licences, and Rainsborough led an expedition
against Salee on the coast of Algiers, whence he brought back from
slavery 370 Englishmen and Irishmen (1637). So far the fleet restored
England’s supremacy, and the court gloried in the success of this
high-handed policy. Privy councillors would laugh when the expression
‘Liberty of the subject’ was used before them; they said that the taxes
and monopolies in England were nothing compared with those endured
by other kingdoms, and that the people ought to be thankful for the
happiness of England, which grew rich in long years of peace while
cruel wars devastated the continent and its inhabitants perished from
famine.
♦Discontent general in country.♦ The facts were true enough, but it
offers no satisfaction to sufferers to be told that others suffer more.
The English people, who prided themselves on the free constitution of
their country, felt as though an insult were offered them when their
condition was compared with that of the slavish peasant of France, who
could call nothing his own.[45] Gentlemen, freeholders, artisans, would
talk and argue about their rights, and regret their old government by
Parliaments. The students at the Inns of Court were noted for their
loyalty, but even they, in getting up a masque in the queen’s honour,
could not forbear having a sly cut at the government. After the
well-mounted masquers, with their gold and silver lace, their cloth of
tissue, their silver spangles, followed the antimasquers, cripples, and
beggars, on “poor lean jades;” amongst them a fellow with a bunch of
carrots upon his head, and a capon upon his fist, who begged a patent
of monopoly as the first inventor of the art to feed capons fat with
carrots; after him came riding a man on a little horse with a great
bit, who begged a patent that none might use any bits but such as were
made by him. The crowd in the streets applauded, understanding a covert
reproach at the monopolies, which raised the prices of the commonest
necessaries of life.
%HAMPDEN--SHIP-MONEY CASE.%
♦Judgment of Court of Exchequer in Hampden’s case.♦ John Hampden, a
gentleman of Buckinghamshire, was among the first to endanger his
property and liberty in support of his country’s rights. He refused to
pay the twenty shillings at which a piece of his land was rated for
ship-money. Charles consented to allow the case to be tried at law. He
thought himself sure of the judges, for he had already obtained the
signatures of all twelve to an extra-judicial opinion, publicly read
in the Star Chamber, ‘that his Majesty might command all his subjects
to provide and furnish such number of ships with men, munition, and
victuals, and for such time as he should think fit, for the defence and
safeguard of the kingdom, and that he was the sole judge both of the
danger, and when and how the same was to be prevented and avoided.’
The cause of Hampden was pleaded for twelve days before all the
twelve judges of the Westminster courts, who by virtue of the Star
Chamber opinion, stood in the same relation to the parties, as though
previous to a trial for murder they had in a public and notorious
manner declared their belief in the innocence of the accused. The whole
nation, poor and rich, Puritans and Episcopalians, alike waited eagerly
for the judgment.
Hampden’s counsel brought forward what seemed an overwhelming weight of
evidence. They could point to the various statutes from Magna Charta
to the Petition of Right, that declared taxation, without consent of
Parliament, illegal. Even if precedents to the contrary were to be
found in times when “the government was more of force than of law,”
such, they argued, must give way before the authority of statute law.
This was in fact unanswerable. But the crown lawyers maintained that
absolute power--power to act without consent of Parliament--was innate
in the person of the King of England. Some of the judges in giving
sentence treated all constitutional statutes as waste paper. “Where Mr.
Holborne,” said Justice Berkeley, “supposed a fundamental policy in
the creation of the frame of this kingdom--that in case the monarch of
England should be inclined to exact from his subjects at his pleasure,
he should be restrained, for he could have nothing from them but upon
a common consent in Parliament--he is utterly mistaken herein. The law
knows no such king-yoking policy. The law is itself an old and trusty
servant of the king’s; it is his instrument or means which he useth to
govern his people by. I never read nor heard that lex was rex, but it
is common and most true that rex is lex.” “The king,” said another,
“may dispense with any law in cases of necessity.” Out of the twelve
judges only two pronounced in favour of Hampden; one of these had
intended to give his judgment on the side of the crown, but changed
his mind through the persuasion of his wife, who bade him not to fear
danger for himself or his family, for she would sooner suffer any want
or misery with him, than that he should act against his conscience
(1637-8).
But at the moment when the victory of the king seemed complete and
courtiers were most exultant, danger was nearer than they thought.
The decision gave universal discontent. It is hard to have your
property taken from you illegally, but harder still to be told that
that illegality is law. It was a Cadmean victory Charles had won; the
levying of ship-money was more difficult after the verdict than before,
and he could not put thousands into prison for expressing discontent.
Wentworth, wiser than his master, had not approved of the trial at
all--“Hampden,” like other opposers of tyranny, “had better have been
whipped into his right senses;” “if the rod be so used that it smarts
not, I am the more sorry.”
%FAVOURS TO CATHOLICS.%
The nation hated the government of the State as arbitrary, corrupt, and
cruel; it hated, however, still more the connivance at Popery, which
characterized the government of the Church.
♦Government of the Church.♦ During the reign of Elizabeth, several
severe laws had been passed against Catholics, condemning priests and
Jesuits to suffer death as traitors, forbidding the exercise of the
Catholic worship, and ordering recusants who refused to attend service
in the parish church, to pay a fine of £20 a month. But now these laws
were not put into force; fines were not regularly levied: if priests
were arrested, they were at once discharged on warrants signed by the
king or his secretaries. A Catholic chapel, built at Somerset House
for Queen Henrietta’s use, was publicly consecrated with three days’
ceremonies, masses, and singing of litanies. Agents from the court of
Rome actually resided in London; they were known to everybody; their
carriages rolled down the streets without any one daring to say a
word against them. Many of the courtiers, some of the king’s council,
and even some of the bishops, were open or concealed Catholics; court
ladies constantly went over to Rome, and the queen’s Capuchin friars
boasted that not a week passed but there were two or three conversions.
The king, however, all the time, had no thoughts of weakening his own
prerogative by making the Church of England dependent on a foreign see.
He was courting Rome to procure the pope’s interest for the restoration
of the palatinate to Charles, eldest son of his sister, Elizabeth. The
pope, on his side, was willing to keep on good terms with the heretical
government, in order to save English Catholics from persecution.
In itself this toleration was laudable. The motives, however, that
influenced Charles to exercise it, were no enlarged views of religious
toleration. He forbore to put the laws against Catholics in force,
because the Catholics supported his pretensions to arbitrary power. The
public law was set aside by a private agreement. At the same time, to
make the contrast more bitter, Puritans, often guiltless of any crime
at law, were suffered to pine away in prison under sentences of the
courts of High Commission and Star Chamber.
%FEELINGS AGAINST CATHOLICS.%
♦Excuse for intolerance of Puritans.♦ Various causes afford excuse for
the bitter and intolerant spirit with which the Puritan regarded his
Catholic fellow-countrymen. Many still lived who could recall to mind
the events of 1588, when the Armada threatened the shores of England.
Thousands still lived who remembered the discovery of the Gunpowder
Plot. Jesuits had taught the doctrine, that heretic princes might be
dethroned and murdered. Several attempts had been made upon Elizabeth’s
life. William the Silent, the heroic maintainer of Dutch liberty, had
perished by the hand of a fanatic. The same fate had befallen the great
Henri IV. of France. Diversity in the Church was thought incompatible
with unity in the State. On the continent, not only did Catholics
persecute Protestants, and Protestants Catholics, but one Protestant
sect could not tolerate another; in England Presbyterians approved of
the persecution of sectarians. In fact the principles of toleration
had hardly as yet been enunciated, much less had they received a fair
trial. It is experience alone that gives confidence, and few are
bold enough to enter upon an untried course of action. The ordinary
Englishman regarded the free toleration of Catholics as a crime both
against his God and his country; as a Protestant he considered it a
direct encouragement to the spread of idolatry and superstition; as a
patriot, an opening for Catholic priests to usurp political power, and
bring England again into dependence upon a foreign jurisdiction.
%THE PURITANS.%
There were, indeed, grounds for the fear, entertained by many, that
a union would finally be effected between the Established Church of
England and of Rome. Altars and images were restored to churches;
popish ceremonies were revived, popish doctrines taught; the work
of the Reformation was in part undone; the worshipper was required
to believe that all his church taught him was true and necessary
for salvation, even though her teaching found no foundation in the
Bible; and again, in order to hold communion with God, he must
seek the aid of priests and assist in ceremonies he regarded as
superstitious.
♦Character of the Puritans.♦ But though a Puritan, even if a
Presbyterian or sectarian, could be forced to conform and attend his
parish church, he could not be prevented from spreading his opinions
and making them felt by others. For his manners and his conduct
betrayed him, and they were such as to command approval. Morality
was inculcated by the ministers of the Church, as much as by the
more popular preachers, but practice is more than profession, and
that Church was supported by a court which treated vice lightly and
made a scoff of virtue. The genuine Puritan, on the contrary, was
distinguished by his strict observance of the moral virtues. He sought
in the Bible, but more especially in the books of the Old Testament,
for the rules by which to guide his actions; he gained a vivid
conception of a personal God, with whom his own soul could enter into
direct communion, and beneath whose displeasure it was fatal to fall;
and he felt with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, “he that keepeth the
law, happy is he; its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths
are peace; if thou hadst walked in its ways, thou shouldst have dwelt
in peace for ever.”
Imbued with such feelings, a certain seriousness of demeanour
characterized the Puritan, and he not unnaturally preferred to pass
his time in listening to sermons, in prayer, and in attending to the
business of his calling, to idly seeking amusement at the theatre,
the fair, or the dance, where he was sure to hear coarse and profane
language spoken, and to fall into the society of drunkards. Confident
that his conduct was approved by God, he could look down upon the
unregenerate, and regard their scoffs with contempt. Amongst uneducated
tradesmen and artisans, there were many fanatics, who refused to take
part in any amusements, however innocent; and who almost seemed to
court ridicule by their austere mode of life, their ostentatiously
plain dress, their close-cut hair, and their frequent use of the words
of scripture.
%LAUD AS PERSECUTOR.%
♦Character of Laud.♦ At the head of the Church stood Laud, Archbishop
of Canterbury. A man more unsuited to assuage the religious passions of
the times could hardly have held the position. However great a virtue
in itself, sincere zeal, when untempered by charity, has produced the
cruellest of persecutors. Some by nature are possessed of a largeness
of mind that enables them to sympathize with the thoughts and feelings
of others; while to some experience and education teach the duty,
or at least the necessity of tolerating what they fail themselves
to understand. Laud was sincere in his views, but nature had not
generously gifted him with the quality of mercy. He came into power
untutored by the experience won by working with others of different
opinions. His abilities were only ordinary, and though his education
was good for his time, it gave him learning rather than wisdom, and
never succeeded in making up for the deficiencies of his heart. The
new opinions seething around were nothing to him but a troublesome
and dangerous fanaticism that required to be suppressed. Such sincere
bigots placed in power have often wrought their country untold harm.
They may by force succeed in stifling the new movement for years,
perhaps for centuries; but, in either case, it is sure at last to break
forth, possibly in some new form, and always with dangerous violence.
Philip II., acting in the full belief that his work was sacred, drove
freedom of thought out of Spain; hence, to this very day, the tyranny
of extremes retards his country’s advance and prosperity. Happily for
England, Laud’s success was of short duration. The reaction came in his
lifetime, and he paid a heavy penalty for his rash attempt to force
conformity upon a people panting for spiritual freedom.
%PRYNNE AND LILBURNE.%
♦Puritans forced to conform.♦ The courts held by bishops, as well as
the Court of High Commission, called to account ministers and laymen
who did not attend church, or who failed to perform every ceremony
exactly as ordained in the Prayer-book, or, indeed, as prescribed by
Laud on his sole authority. A minister of Durham, for speaking in a
sermon against the use of pictures and images, was degraded by the
Court of High Commission, fined £500, and placed in prison, where
he waited eleven years for the hour of release. The Court of Star
Chamber, in which Laud himself sat as a judge, was always ready to
support the cause of the Church. Three professional men, Prynne, a
lawyer; Burton, a London minister; and Bastwick, a doctor, had written
books inveighing against the bishops.
♦Sentences of Star Chamber on Burton, Bastwick, Prynne.♦ On being
brought before the Star Chamber, they were charged with felony, for
having tried to stir up sedition, and sentenced to pay fines of £5000
each, to stand in the pillory in Palace Yard, Westminster, to have
their ears cut off, and to be imprisoned for life.
“So far,” said Bastwick, addressing the crowd, surging round the
pillories, “am I from base fear, or caring for anything that they can
do, that had I as much blood as would swell the Thames, I would shed
it every drop in this cause. Therefore, be not any of you discouraged,
be not daunted at their power.” “Had we,” said Prynne, “respected
(regarded) our liberties we had not stood here at this time.” “Sir,”
said a woman to Burton, “there are many hundreds which, by God’s
assistance, would willingly suffer for the cause you suffer for this
day.” A mournful cry arose from the crowd, as the prisoners’ ears were
cropped, and many pressed forward to dip handkerchiefs into the blood
streaming down the scaffold.
♦Lilburne refuses illegal oath.♦ John Lilburne, a young man about
twenty years old, was brought before the Star Chamber on a charge of
being concerned in bringing seditious books over from Holland. He
was required to swear, laying his hand upon the Gospels, to answer
truly all questions put to him. He refused. “The oath,” he said, “is
of the same nature as the High Commission oath, which oath I know to
be unlawful, and withal I find no warrant in the word of God for an
oath of inquiry, and therefore, my lords, I dare not take it.”[46]
In accordance with his sentence, Lilburne was tied to a cart’s tail
and whipped from the Fleet prison to Westminster Yard, at every two
or three steps receiving on his bare back a blow from a knotted
treble-corded whip. The young enthusiast never flinched, but all the
way quoted texts of Scripture, exhorting the crowd to resist the
bishops. At Westminster Yard he bowed to his judges, whom he saw
looking out at him from the Court of Star Chamber window, and then
sitting in the bent painful attitude required by the pillory, continued
his exhortations. “I will never take the oath, though I be pulled
to pieces by wild horses; neither shall I think that man a faithful
subject of Christ’s kingdom, that shall at any time hereafter take it.
My brethren, we are all at this present in a very dangerous and fearful
condition, in regard we have turned traitors unto our God, in seeing
His almighty great name and His heavenly truth trodden under foot, and
yet we not only let the bishops alone in holding our peace, but most
slavishly subject ourselves unto them, fearing the face of a piece of
dirt more than the almighty great God of heaven and earth, who is able
to cast both body and soul into everlasting damnation.” He was still
addressing the people in the same strain, when the warden of the Fleet
came and placed a gag on his mouth.
%PERSECUTION OF PURITANS.%
Such were the means taken by the archbishop to crush the spirit of the
Puritans, and by him not considered sufficiently “thorough.” As if for
the sole purpose of irritating his opponents, the king, by his advice,
ordered a proclamation, called the Book of Sports, to be read by
ministers after service, declaring that certain games, such as leaping,
vaulting, and wrestling were lawful on Sundays. It had been originally
published by James, but its reading not enforced. Now no minister
might escape. Thirty who refused to obey in the diocese of Norwich--a
stronghold of Puritanism--were suspended. Some temporized. A London
minister read the proclamation, and after it the ten commandments.
“Dearly beloved,” he said, “you have heard the commandment of God and
of man, obey which you please.”
♦‘Lecturers’ put down.♦ The Puritans raised subscriptions for
purchasing from laymen their right of presentation to livings and for
hiring lecturers to preach on afternoons in market towns. But Laud, not
content with ordering that lecturers should wear the surplice and read
the service, determined to break up the whole association. The trustees
were declared by the Court of Exchequer to have misused the funds with
which they were entrusted, and the whole were forfeited to the king, to
be used for the good of the Church and the maintenance of conformable
ministers. The Church, however, lost its hold on the people, when it
lost the most earnest and most popular of its preachers. Into the
livings of the ejected Puritans were put ignorant men or court clergy,
who bade their people be passively obedient, while they lost their
cherished liberties. Of such pastors Milton wrote, as--
“Blind mouths that scarce themselves know how to hold
A sheephook, or have learned aught else the least
That to the faithful herdsman’s art belongs!
What recks it them? What need they? They are sped;
And when they list, their lean and flashy songs
Grate on their scrannel pipes of wretched straw;
The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,
But swoln with wind and the rank mist they draw,
Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread;
Beside what the grim wolf with privy paw[47]
Daily devours apace, and nothing said.”
While Laud thus awoke the hate of Puritans by intolerance, he aroused
that of the laity generally by endeavouring to raise the political
importance of the Church. As a politician, he was both ambitious and
unscrupulous, as might be expected of one who had risen to power at the
heels of Buckingham. Courts held by bishops now sent out writs in their
own names, instead of in that of the king. Clergymen were made justices
of the peace in place of country gentlemen. Bishops sat in the king’s
council and in the Court of Star Chamber. Juxon, Bishop of London, was
appointed by the king to the influential and coveted office of lord
treasurer. “Now,” wrote Laud in his diary, “if the Church will not hold
themselves up under God, I can do no more.”
♦Emigration to America.♦ In order to escape persecution and tyranny,
new homes were sought in America. In Virginia a Church of England
colony had been founded by adventurers in 1607. The earliest settlers
in New England were the Pilgrim Fathers, a body of persecuted
sectarians, who had sailed across the Atlantic in the “Mayflower,” in
1620. Rhode Island was colonized in 1634, and liberty of conscience
established. Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic, granted the same boon to
all settlers in Maryland (1638). In the ten years preceding 1640, the
number of emigrants to New England was estimated at 21,200.
The Presbyterian Church had been long since established in Scotland
by an act of the Scotch Parliament (1592). James I., however, had
succeeded by not very creditable means in restoring Scotch bishops to
the possession of their former titles, though to little of their former
influence and position.
%LITURGY FOR SCOTLAND.%
♦Episcopacy in Scotland.♦ Charles and Laud now determined on setting
up a church government in Scotland, to answer in all respects to that
established in England. Canons, to regulate the Church of Scotland,
were drawn up by the Scotch bishops, and afterwards revised by Laud, in
which no place was left for the action of any Presbyterian assemblies.
The following year, in place of “Knox’s Liturgy,” as the Service-book
ordinarily used by the Scots was called, a new Prayer-book, nearly the
same as the English, was ordered to be read in all churches, from the
23rd July, 1637. In St. Giles’, the cathedral church of Edinburgh, no
sooner had the dean opened the new liturgy, than all the lower order of
people in the church began to scream, clap their hands, hiss and groan,
making such a hideous outcry that no one could either hear or be heard.
The cry was, “Sorrow, sorrow, for this dreadful day; they are bringing
Popery amongst us.” Sticks, stones, Bibles, stools, were hurled at the
dean’s head. In other places the Prayer-book received a like reception.
By most it was looked on as little better than the mass itself. Its
very exterior gave offence to the Presbyterian; the red and black type,
the Gothic letters, pictorial capitals, and other illustrations, seemed
to imply a revival of Catholic times. The nobles were afraid of being
required to restore church property acquired at the Reformation; when
not moved by religious fervour themselves, their interests made them at
heart on the side of the rioters.
The whole nation was enraged. When James I. had introduced changes into
the Presbyterian form of church government, he had at least obtained
the sanction of a corrupt church-assembly and parliament. But Charles
was endeavouring to establish the Episcopalian Church in the place of
the Presbyterian, upon his own sole authority, as though he were indeed
an absolute monarch, able to make laws without the consent of his
subjects.
%THE SCOTCH COVENANT.%
The king, to whom a tumult raised by the rabble seemed no cause for
alarm, sent orders that the new Service-book was still to be read. The
lords of the Scotch council, however, dared not put his commands into
execution. They were themselves assaulted in the streets of Edinburgh
by an infuriated mob, and only rescued from death by the nobles and
gentry, who now, following the example of the people, came flocking
into the capital to sign an accusation against the bishops (18th Oct.,
1637).
♦Scots enter into a covenant in defence of religious laws and
liberties.♦ The tumults rapidly took the form of rebellion: a council
was chosen, composed of members from the four classes, nobles, gentry,
clergy, burgesses, which soon became a new power in the State, more
formidable than the king’s council (15th Nov., 1637); at last, a
national league was formed under the name of the Covenant (a forerunner
of the ‘Solemn League and Covenant’ with the English in 1643), binding
the signers to reject the new canons and liturgy, and to defend their
sovereign, their religion, their laws, and liberties (1st March, 1638).
An assembly of the Church, which met at Glasgow, refused to dissolve
at the instance of the Duke of Hamilton, the king’s deputy (28th Nov.,
1638), and proceeded to abolish liturgy, canons, and episcopacy itself.
After thus defying the royal authority, the Covenanters prepared for
war. The question of war had also to be debated in the king’s council
at home. The critical moment was now come, when the strength of the
government was put to the test.
♦War with Scotland.♦ “I am not for war,” wrote one of the privy
council; “in the exchequer there is but £200; the magazines are totally
unfurnished; commanders are there none for execution or advice; the
people are so discontented, there is reason to fear a greater part
of them will be readier to join the Scots than to draw swords in the
king’s service.” Wentworth, who did not despair so quickly as these
panic-stricken councillors, began to increase the size of the army in
Ireland, and to call for sterner measures against defaulters. Yet to
advise Charles to do nothing by halves, to introduce episcopacy into
Scotland, and to govern that country as he himself governed Ireland,
was much like telling a man with a palsied hand to drive the nail home.
The deputy, so proud of his Irish government, could not, or would not,
read aright the signs of the times. Some of the council advised the
calling of a Parliament, but Charles could not hear the proposal with
patience. Money was therefore raised by loans and other illegal means.
♦Charles and court proceed to York.♦ By the spring of 1639 an army
of some 12,000 men was fitted out, and the king proceeded to York,
followed, not only by his court, but by all the nobility and most
influential gentry of the kingdom, whom he summoned to attend his
person at their own charge, as had been customary in feudal times. He
hoped by this display to overawe his needy Scottish subjects.
%PACIFICATION AT BERWICK.%
But the Scots were too much in earnest, and too well understood the
state of feeling in England, to be easily overawed. By the time Charles
reached Berwick, it was evident that they could not be reduced that
summer. The first English force that saw the face of an enemy, made a
precipitate retreat. The courtiers who longed for a return to their
pleasures, the nobles and gentlemen who desired a redress of their
wrongs, all urged the necessity of coming to an agreement with the
Covenanters.
♦Pacification of Berwick.♦ Charles found himself obliged to sign a
Pacification at Berwick, in which it was agreed that both a Parliament
and a Church Assembly should be summoned in Scotland, for the
settlement of all grievances, religious and civil (18th June, 1639).
The king, however, signed the agreement merely as a temporary measure,
and with the full intention of raising a larger force and renewing
the war next summer. The Scots had plenty of friends in England to
warn them of the policy pursued; how Wentworth had been summoned from
Ireland, and created Earl of Strafford; how the Irish army was being
increased in size; how a new army was being raised in England, and
every nerve strained to get money.
In foreign policy meantime Charles had been inconsistent and wavering.
At one time he had entered into negotiations with France, at another
with Spain, for the restoration of the palatinate to his nephew.
♦Foreign governments unfriendly to Charles.♦ Now, therefore, that he
was involved in difficulties with his subjects, governments which had
received cause of offence assumed an unfriendly attitude. The pope
forbade the Catholics to be so ready in lending money and offering
to serve in the army, for after all, Laud’s religion, which did not
acknowledge the pope as head of the Church, was no more the Catholic
religion than that of the Puritans. The Dutch grew so insolent that
they destroyed a Spanish fleet which was riding in the Downs under
Charles’ own protection, while the English ambassador wrote from Spain
that the Spaniards were instigating the Irish to rebel. Richelieu,
bearing in mind the expeditions in aid of Rochelle, now took the
opportunity to repay his injuries by sending supplies of money and
arms to the Covenanters. A copy of a letter written by the Scots to
Louis XIII. was intercepted by Charles, who thought that with this
proof of treason in his hand, he might venture on meeting a Parliament.
But indeed, the necessity of calling a Parliament if the war were
to be continued, was daily becoming more and more manifest.
♦Illegal demands opposed.♦ ‘Men’s consciences awoke,’ and forbade them
to pay ship-money. Even in Yorkshire, where Strafford possessed so much
influence, gentlemen refused to equip soldiers without receiving some
security for repayment of the money. Strafford advised the lords of the
council to send for them to London, and “lay them up by the heels.”[48]
“What,” he asked, “should become of the levy of 30,000 men in case the
other counties should return the like answer?” A pregnant question,
for everywhere the same spirit was manifested; London refused loans,
country gentlemen made excuses, and the king was at last driven to that
resource, which last year he would not hear mentioned. He summoned his
fourth Parliament on the 13th April, 1640.
%SHORT PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED.%
♦Charles’ fourth Parliament.♦ Charles asked for an immediate grant
of money. Pym rose, and in a speech of two hours, while speaking
respectfully of the king, laid bare the offences of the government
against religion, justice, and the power and privilege of Parliament.
The House, with deep attention, heard him out, and then voted that
they would find a remedy for their grievances before granting the
king a supply. The letter of the Scots to Louis XIII. did not trouble
the Commons at all, and was no fair proof of treason, as it was dated
before the Pacification of Berwick. “The people,” it was said, “would
sooner pay subsidies to prevent the unhappy war than to carry it on.”
Grievances formed such an ample subject of debate, that Charles,
growing impatient, sent a message saying, if the Parliament would grant
him twelve subsidies, to be paid in three years, he would never levy
ship-money without consent of Parliament (4th May, 1640). Though the
Commons felt indignant that they should be asked to purchase immunity
from an illegal tax, they were about, after a long debate, to put the
question to the vote, whether a supply should be given to the king,
without, for the present, specifying any particular sum, when Sir Henry
Vane, Charles’ secretary, rose and said it was of no use to put that
question, for the king would not accept less than he had asked. In
disgust the House broke up; and the next morning, Charles having lost
patience, dissolved the Parliament (5th May, 1640).
%PEERS AT YORK.%
Arbitrary measures were now again employed to raise money for the
war; and refusers of loans were imprisoned. But no severity was able
to suppress the spirit of opposition. The gentry of Yorkshire sent a
petition to the king, complaining of the billeting of unruly soldiers,
“to whose violence and insolence we are so daily subject, as we
cannot say we possess our wives and children in security. Wherefore,”
continues the petition, “we are emboldened to present these our
complaints, beseeching your Majesty that, as the billeting of soldiers
in any of your subjects’ houses is contrary to the ancient laws of
this kingdom confirmed by your Majesty in the Petition of Right,
this insupportable charge may be taken off.”[49]
♦Soldiers mutinous; refuse to fight.♦ Riots broke out in London; the
militia refused to serve; officers and soldiers said they would not
fight ‘to support the power and pride of bishops.’ Soldiers had to be
pressed, and artisans were daily dragged from the shops and forced on
board the fleet. A disorderly army was at length formed; when formed it
would not fight. Some regiments dispersed of themselves; others killed
officers who were Catholics; others broke open the prisons, and made
havoc of the country through which they passed. Before Strafford, the
general of the army, reached the camp, his soldiers fled before the
enemy; this was at Newburn Ford, on the borders of the two kingdoms
(28th Aug., 1640). The Scots, having by this easy success gained
possession of the passage of the Tyne, entered Newcastle without
opposition, and continued to advance in the direction of York.
%LONG PARLIAMENT SUMMONED.%
Charles’ weakness was now proved. Doubtful and despondent, he knew not
what to do or whither to turn for counsel. The Irish army, though in
good training, was only about 5000 strong, and was required in Ireland
to overawe the people. The Scots were in the kingdom, masters of the
four northern counties, while his own army refused to fight.
♦Assembly of peers at York.♦ Yet a Parliament seemed a terribly caustic
remedy to apply to his difficulties, and he bethought himself of
calling an assembly, composed solely of peers, as had occasionally been
the custom of English kings four centuries before, when the House of
Commons was hardly recognized as an integral part of the government.
Perhaps, thought some credulous courtier, this assembly of peers
might even vote the king money. But the nation thought otherwise.
“If,” said two lords consulted by the king’s council, “it be intended
to raise money by any other way than a Parliament, it will give no
satisfaction.”[50] Charles was left in no doubt of his subjects’
wishes; counties sent petitions for a Parliament; twelve of the chief
peers of the realm signed a petition for a Parliament; the City of
London petitioned for a Parliament; the Scots sent a petition: ‘they
were loyal subjects, their grievances were the cause of their being
in arms; they begged their king to settle a firm and durable peace
by advice of a Parliament.’ So at last, forced by necessity, Charles
yielded.
♦Charles summons his fifth Parliament.♦ When the peers met at York
(24th Sept., 1640), he informed them that he had already sent out writs
for a Parliament, and asked their advice for treating with the Scots.
“They were so taken,” writes the king’s secretary, “with his Majesty’s
speech and with his Majesty’s offer of a Parliament that whatever was
afterwards proposed they yielded to.... There is no doubt but this
black storm will be dispersed.”[51]
Sixteen peers, none of them favourable to arbitrary government,
negotiated with eight Scottish commissioners at Ripon. It was agreed
that a cessation of arms should be made for two months; that both
armies should remain where they were; that the northern counties should
support the Scottish army by paying it £5600 a week, until a peace
should be concluded in London (23rd Oct., 1640). Then king, lords, and
Scottish commissioners hastened to the capital, where Charles met his
fifth and last Parliament (3rd Nov., 1640).
FOOTNOTES:
[34] The king’s ordinary revenue consisted--
(1.) Of fines paid by feudal tenants.
(2.) Of rents accruing from lands belonging to the crown.
(3.) Of fines and fees paid in courts of justice.
(4.) Of forfeitures of lands and goods for offences.
(5.) Of the first-fruits and tenths of all spiritual preferments in
the kingdom. The first-fruits or annates were the first year’s whole
profits by a valuation made in the thirteenth century (1288-1292). The
decimæ were the tenth part of the annual profit of every living by the
same valuation. These taxes, originally paid to the pope, were annexed
to the crown by an act passed in the twenty-sixth year of Henry VIII.
(By a statute of 2nd and 3rd Anne, the revenue of first-fruits and
tenths has been vested in trustees for ever, to form a perpetual fund
for the augmentation of poor livings.)
(6.) Of the custom duties, when granted to the king for life. To these
however, Charles had no legal claim. See p. 31.
[35] Ellis, Orig. Letters, ii. cclxxi.
[36] Lawful proclamations were those--
(1) Issued by the crown in its purely executive capacity.
(2) Prohibiting acts already prohibited by law, or calling on the
subject to perform some duty to which he was bound by law.
Unlawful proclamations were those usurping the legislative power, which
the crown by right could only exercise in common with the two Houses
of Parliament, as for instance, those granting individuals privileges
against the rights of others, imposing duties not imposed by law,
prohibiting under penalties acts which the law did not recognize as
offences.
[37] 1 mark = 13s. 4d.; therefore, 1600 marks, £666 13s. 4d.
[38] In 1667, only seven years after the Restoration, the Commons
resolved that the judgment now given against Eliot, Hollis, and
Valentine, though right as regarded the imputed riot, was illegal in
extending to words spoken in Parliament; the Lords concurred in the
vote and reversed the judgment. This decision established, once for
all, the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament, unlimited by any
authority except that of the House itself.
[39] See p. 98, and Plato, “Crito,” 54.
[40] See p. 105.
[41] Straff. Letters and Despatches, ii. 20.
[42] Straff. Letters and Despatches.
[43] See p. 89.
[44] See p. 18.
[45] During the reign of Henri IV. the prisons of Normandy were full of
prisoners unable to pay the tax on salt. So many died, that 120 corpses
were taken out at a time. The Parliament of Rouen begged his Majesty to
take pity on his people; but the king, who had been informed that the
tax was very productive, said he wished it to be continued, and seemed
as though he would make a joke of the rest--‘Semblait qu’il voulût
tourner le reste en risée.’--Lavallée, iii. 57.
[46] State Trials, I.
[47] For the conversions to Popery, see p. 69.
[48] _I.e._, to fetter, or put in gyves. See Shaks. Henry VIII. v. 3.
[49] Petition of Yorkshire gentry, 28th July, 1640, MSS. Clar. Pap. and
Rushworth.
[50] Clar. State Papers, 1-112.
[51] Windebank to Sir A. Hopton, 1st Oct., 1640, MSS. Clar. Papers in
Bodleian.