Chapter IV: , VII (5)

"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Humbly show unto our
Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared
and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King
Edward the First, commonly called, 'Statutum de Tallagio non
concedendo,' that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by
the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and
assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights,
Burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this
realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is
declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be
compelled to make any loans to the King against his will,
because such loans were against reason and the franchise of
the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that
none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a
Benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes
before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this
realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they
should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage,
aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in
Parliament: Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions
directed to sundry Commissioners in several counties with
instructions have issued, by means whereof your people have
been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain
sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their
refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them, not
warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm, and have
been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give
attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and
others of them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and
sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers other
charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several
counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants,
Commissioners for Musters, Justices of Peace and others, by
command or direction from your Majesty or your Privy Council,
against the laws and free customs of this realm: And where
also by the statute called, 'The Great Charter of the
Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no
freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his
freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or
exiled; or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment
of his peers, or by the law of the land: And in the eight and
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it was
declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man
of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of
his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor
disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer
by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of the
said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your
realm, to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of
late been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when for
their deliverance they were brought before your Justices, by
your Majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and
receive as the Court should order, and their keepers commanded
to certify the causes of their detainer; no cause was
certified, but that they were detained by your Majesty's
special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council,
and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being
charged with anything to which they might make answer
according to the law: And whereas of late great companies of
soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties
of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have
been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to
suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this
realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people:
And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year
of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and
enacted, that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb
against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the
land:
{849}
and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes
of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death; but
by the laws established in this your realm, either by the
customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament: and
whereas no offender of what kind soever is exempted from the
proceedings to be used, and punishments to be inflicted by the
laws and statutes of this your realm: nevertheless of late
divers commissions under your Majesty's Great Seal have issued
forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and
appointed Commissioners with power and authority to proceed
within the land, according to the justice of martial law
against such soldiers and mariners, or other dissolute persons
joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery,
felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever,
and by such summary course and order, as is agreeable to
martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, to proceed
to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to
cause to be executed and put to death, according to the law
martial: By pretext whereof, some of your Majesty's subjects
have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death, when
and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had
deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might,
and by no other ought to have been, adjudged and executed: And
also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an
exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the
laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of
your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused,
or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the
same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders
were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such
commissions as aforesaid, which commissions, and all other of
like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws
and statutes of this your realm: They do therefore humbly pray
your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be
compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax,
or such like charge, without common consent by Act of
Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take
such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise
molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal
thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is
before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your
Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and
mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time
to come; and that the foresaid commissions for proceeding by
martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter
no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or
persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by
colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or
put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent
Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws
and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also
vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings
to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall
not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that
your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further
comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will
and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers
and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and
statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your
Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom. [Which Petition
being read the 2nd of June 1628, the King's answer was thus
delivered unto it. The King willeth that right be done
according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the
statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may have
no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions, contrary to
their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof
he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative. On
June 7 the answer was given in the accustomed form, 'Soit
droit fait comme il est désiré.']"

ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England,
chapter 63 (volume 6)._

_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
page 1._

_J. L. De Lolme,
The English Constitution,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
Assassination of Buckingham.

"While the struggle [over the Petition of Right] was going on,
the popular hatred of Buckingham [the King's favourite, whose
influence at court was supreme] showed itself in a brutal
manner. In the streets of London, the Duke's physician, Dr.
Lambe, was set upon by the mob, called witch, devil, and the
Duke's conjuror, and absolutely beaten to death. The Council
set inquiries on foot, but no individual was brought before
it, and the rhyme went from mouth to mouth--'Let Charles and
George do what they can, The Duke shall die like Doctor
Lambe.' ... Charles, shocked and grieved, took his friend in
his own coach through London to see the ten ships which were
being prepared at Deptford for the relief of Rochelle. It was
reported that he was heard to say, 'George, there are some
that wish that both these and thou might perish. But care not
thou for them. We will both perish together if thou dost.'
There must have been something strangely attractive about the
man who won and kept the hearts of four personages so
dissimilar as James and Charles of England, Anne of Austria,
and William Laud. ... In the meantime Rochelle held out." One
attempt to relieve the beleaguered town had failed. Buckingham
was to command in person the armament now in preparation for
another attempt. "The fleet was at Portsmouth, and Buckingham
went down thither in high spirits to take the command. The
King came down to Sir Daniel Norton's house at Southwick. On
the 23d of August Buckingham rose and 'cut a caper or two'
before the barber dealt with his moustache and lovelocks. Then
he was about to sit down to breakfast with a number of
captains, and as he rose he received letters which made him
believe that Rochelle had been relieved. He said he must tell
the King instantly, but Soubise and the other refugees did not
believe a word of it, and there was a good deal of disputing
and gesticulation between them. He crossed a lobby, followed
by the eager Frenchmen, and halted to take leave of an
officer, Sir Thomas Fryar. Over the shoulder of this
gentleman, as he bowed, a knife was thrust into Buckingham's
breast. There was an effort to withdraw it; a cry 'The
Villain!' and the great Duke, at 36 years old, was dead. The
attendants at first thought the blow came from one of the
noisy Frenchmen, and were falling on them." But a servant had
seen the deed committed, and ran after the assassin, who was
arrested and proved to be one John Felton, a soldier and a man
of good family. He had suffered wrongs which apparently
unhinged his mind.

{850}

_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
6th series, chapter 17._

ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 65._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628-1632.
Conquest and brief occupation of Canada and Nova Scotia.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1635.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The royal charter granted to the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay.

See: MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The King's Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
Tonnage and Poundage.
The tumult in Parliament and the dissolution.

Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June,
1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The
Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very
extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call
Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between
Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied
without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio
non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed
Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary
consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to
pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd':
there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to
Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had
been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In
regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant
Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to
a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like
circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of
consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's
death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of
Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of
Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of
Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully
ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable
tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was
in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February,
1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and
made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way
into History. ... A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved
upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there.
Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' ... the King
hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was
dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most
unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a
Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day,
while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to
'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had
orders to the contrary; persisted in that;--and at last took
to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days;
and consider what to do! On the second day, which was
Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's
command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday
next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former
nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn
again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once
more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But
young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second
son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for
that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his
chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such
agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House
was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy
Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them,
who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr.
Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles;
'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to
rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted
manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked
their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their
Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and
Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man
out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly
vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they
understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising
procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention,
and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil
Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and
others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much
legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was
kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday,
2d of March, 1629."

_T. Carlyle,
Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Sir John Eliot: a Biography,
book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1630.
Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
with their royal charter.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1631.
Aid to Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

ENGLAND: A. D: 1632.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

See NOVA SCOTIA (ACADIA): A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1632.
The Palatine grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
The Ecclesiastical despotism of Laud.

"When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood
alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the
means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for
establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their
church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and
enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired
them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed
the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all
ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none
professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and
struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The
courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men
threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford
more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one
adversary remained--the people, each day more discontented
with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish
it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne;
it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other,
evangelical faith and civil liberty.
{851}
The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of
episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to
believe that he was not the only one who held his authority
from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of
less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so
many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the
clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the
people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed
vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the
bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the
strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its
doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to
this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous
resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands
of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took
cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious
matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its
jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete
adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the
liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously
exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great
many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were
withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they
were forbidden to preach. ... Persecution followed and reached
them everywhere. ... Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship
speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their
pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful,
magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid
great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to
collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely
the details of new ceremonies--sometimes borrowed from Rome,
sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once
ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists,
every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the
liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without
consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's
consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority.
... And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events
the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more
like that of Rome. ... Books were published to prove that the
doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself
to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly
licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly
tolerated. ... The splendour and exclusive dominion of
episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself,
Laud proceeded to secure its independence. ... The divine
right of bishops became, in a short time, the official
doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king
himself. ... By the time things had come to this pass, the
people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part
of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of
the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular
revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular
reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that
which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."

_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
book 2._

ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 2, chapters 4-6._

_G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
chapters 13-16 (volume l)._

_P. Bayne,
The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
Hostile measures against the Massachusetts Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
Ship-money.

"The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. ... All
the promises of the king were violated without scruple or
shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in
consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent,
was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority.
Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal
times were made pretexts for harassing the people with
exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were
persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were
forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They
were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit.
Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty
of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the
victims. ... The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite
of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots
deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an
inclement sky. ... For the misgovernment of this disastrous
period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the
death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime
minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him,
or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the
one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper
would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and
capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never
were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals
to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as
they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that
age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes
of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark
him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. ... But
Wentworth--whoever names him without thinking of those harsh
dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the
majesty of an antique Jupiter! ... Among the humbler tools of
Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the
attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause
of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that
cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with
Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the
people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the
king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of
war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns
along the coast. These measures, though they were direct
violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of
precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government
took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent
writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch
of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at
a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to
bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland
counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in
the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our
shores.
{852}
It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the
Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying
ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy
it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under
the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly
admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of
the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no
bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The
nation well understood this; and from one end of England to
the other, the public mind was strongly excited.
Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum
of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very
small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff
was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But,
though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the
demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most
eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the
few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to
incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of
bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between
the people and the crown. ... Towards the close of the year
1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before
all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the
writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper
was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as
yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents
had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments
of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber
took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the
bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of
Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only
during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the
least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his
favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave
their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this
decision was to make the public indignation stronger and
deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more
advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the
king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this
occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his
reputation to a great height generally throughout the
kingdom.'"

_Lord Macaulay,
Essays,
volume 2 (Nugent's Memorials of Hampden)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Hampden._

_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 74 (volume 7),
and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);_

ALSO

_Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages 37-53, and 115._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
Presbyterianism of the Puritan party.
Rise of the independents.

"It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of
the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the
constitution in church or state, or would square their actions
by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."

_J. Rushworth,
Historical Collection,
volume 2, 1355._

"These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the
civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been
the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the
conscientious people of England. There was a sort of
imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to
immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the
establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal
church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire
opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no
difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no
thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others.
Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery.
They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of
God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members,
and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a
blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put
down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law,
and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress
all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself
not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party,
which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction,
gradually arose the party of the independents. ... Before the
end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party
of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities,
intellectual, military and civil."

_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

See, also,
INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND:
A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER),
A. D. 1646 (MARCH),
A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST),
and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
The First Bishops' War in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War.
The Scots Army in England.

"His Majesty having burnt Scotch paper Declarations 'by the
hands of the common hangman,' and almost cut the Scotch
Chancellor Loudon's head off, and being again resolute to
chastise the rebel Scots with an Army, decides on summoning a
Parliament for that end, there being no money attainable
otherwise. To the great and glad astonishment of England;
which, at one time, thought never to have seen another
Parliament! Oliver Cromwell sat in this Parliament for
Cambridge; recommended by Hampden, say some; not needing any
recommendation in those Fen-countries, think others. Oliver's
Colleague was a Thomas Meautys, Esq. This Parliament met, 13th
April, 1640: it was by no means prompt enough with supplies
against the rebel Scots; the king dismissed it in a huff, 5th
May; after a Session of three weeks: Historians call it the
Short Parliament. His Majesty decides on raising money and an
Army 'by other methods': to which end Wentworth, now Earl
Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had advised that
course in the Council, did himself subscribe £20,000.
Archbishop Laud had long ago seen 'a cloud rising' against the
Four surplices at Allhallowtide; and now it is covering the
whole sky in a most dismal and really thundery-looking manner.
His Majesty by 'other methods,' commission of array, benevolence,
forced loan, or how he could, got a kind of Army on foot, and
set it marching out of the several Counties in the South
towards the Scotch Border; but it was a most hopeless Army.
The soldiers called the affair a Bishops' War; they mutinied
against their officers, shot some of their officers: in
various Towns on their march, if the Clergyman were reputed
Puritan, they went and gave him three cheers; if of
Surplice-tendency, they sometimes threw his furniture out of
the window.
{853}
No fighting against poor Scotch Gospellers was to be hoped for
from these men. Meanwhile the Scots, not to be behindhand, had
raised a good Army of their own; and decided on going into
England with it, this time, 'to present their grievances to
the King's Majesty.' On the 20th of August, 1640, they cross
the Tweed at Coldstream; Montrose wading in the van of them
all. They wore uniform of hodden gray, with blue caps; and
each man had a moderate haversack of oatmeal on his back.
August 28th, the Scots force their way across the Tyne, at
Newburn, some miles above Newcastle; the King's Army making
small fight, most of them no fight; hurrying from Newcastle,
and all town and country quarters, towards York again, where
his Majesty and Strafford were. The Bishops' War was at an
end. The Scots, striving to be gentle as doves in their
behaviour, and publishing boundless brotherly Declarations to
all the brethren that loved Christ's Gospel and God's Justice
in England,--took possession of Newcastle next day; took
possession gradually of all Northumberland and Durham,--and
stayed there, in various towns and villages, about a year. The
whole body of English Puritans looked upon them as their
saviours. ... His Majesty and Strafford, in a fine frenzy at
the turn of affairs, found no refuge, except to summon a
'Council of Peers,' to enter upon a 'Treaty' with the Scots;
and alas, at last, summon a New Parliament. Not to be helped
in any way. ... A Parliament was appointed for the 3d of
November next;--whereupon London cheerfully lent £200,000; and
the Treaty with the Scots at Ripon, 1st October, 1640, by and
by transferred to London, went peaceably on at a very
leisurely pace. The Scotch Army lay quartered at Newcastle,
and over Northumberland and Durham, on an allowance of £850 a
day; an Army indispensable for Puritan objects; no haste in
finishing its Treaty. The English army lay across in
Yorkshire; without allowance except from the casualties of the
King's Exchequer; in a dissatisfied manner, and occasionally
getting into 'Army-Plots.' This Parliament, which met on the
3d of November; 1640, has become very celebrated in History by
the name of the 'Long Parliament.'"

_T. Carlyle,
Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 1: 1640._

ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford._

_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 91-94._

_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 72-73 (volume 7)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
Acquisition and settlement of Madras.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
The Long Parliament and the beginning of its work.
Impeachment and Execution of Strafford.

"The game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost
his last stake. It is impossible to trace the mortifications
and humiliations which this bad man now had to endure without
a feeling of vindictive pleasure. His army was mutinous; his
treasury was empty; his people clamoured for a Parliament;
addresses and petitions against the government were presented.
Strafford was for shooting those who presented them by martial
law, but the king could not trust the soldiers. A great
council of Peers was called at York, but the king would not
trust even the Peers. He struggled, he evaded, he hesitated,
he tried every shift rather than again face the
representatives of his injured people. At length no shift was
left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a
Parliament. ... On the 3d of November, 1640--a day to be long
remembered--met that great Parliament, destined to every
extreme of fortune--to empire and to servitude, to glory and
to contempt;--at one time the sovereign of its sovereign, at
another time the servant of its servants, and the tool of its
tools. From the first day of its meeting the attendance was
great, and the aspect of the members was that of men not
disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution of the
late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures
would no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us that 'the same men
who, six months before, were observed to be of very moderate
tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied,
talked now in another dialect both of kings and persons; and
said that they must now be of another temper than they were
the last Parliament.' The debt of vengeance was swollen by all
the usury which had been accumulating during many years; and
payment was made to the full. This memorable crisis called
forth parliamentary abilities, such as England had never
before seen. Among the most distinguished members of the House
of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, Young, Harry Vane, Oliver
St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men
exercised a paramount influence over the legislature and the
country--Pym and Hampden; and, by the universal consent of
friends and enemies, the first place belonged to Hampden."

_Lord Macaulay,
Nugent's Memorials of Hampden
(Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2)._

"The resolute looks of the members as they gathered at
Westminster contrasted with the hesitating words of the king,
and each brought from borough or county a petition of
grievances. Fresh petitions were brought every day by bands of
citizens or farmers. Forty committees were appointed to
examine and report on them, and their reports formed the
grounds on which the Commons acted. One by one the illegal
acts of the Tyranny were annulled. Prynne and his fellow
'martyrs' recalled from their prisons, entered London in
triumph, amid the shouts of a great multitude who strewed
laurel in their path. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of
the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High
Commission, the irregular jurisdictions of the Council of the
North, of the Duchy of Lancaster, the County of Chester, and a
crowd of lesser tribunals, were summarily abolished.
Ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgment in Hampden's
case annulled. A statute declaring 'the ancient right of the
subjects of this kingdom that no subsidy, custom, impost, or
any charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon
any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or
allies, without common consent of Parliament,' put an end
forever to all pretensions to a right of arbitrary taxation on
the part of the crown. A Triennial Bill enforced the Assembly
of the Houses every three years, and bound the sheriff and
citizens to proceed to election if the Royal writ failed to
summon them. Charles protested, but gave way. He was forced to
look helplessly on at the wreck of his Tyranny, for the Scotch
army was still encamped in the north. ... Meanwhile the
Commons were dealing roughly with the agents of the Royal
system. ...
{854}
Windebank, the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, Finch,
fled in terror over sea. Laud himself was flung into prison.
... But even Laud, hateful as he was to all but the poor
neighbours whose prayers his alms had won, was not the centre
of so great and universal a hatred as the Earl of Strafford.
Strafford's guilt was more than the guilt of a servile
instrument of tyranny--it was the guilt of 'that grand
apostate to the Commonwealth who,' in the terrible words which
closed Lord Digby's invective, 'must not expect to be pardoned
in this world till he be dispatched to the other.' He was
conscious of his danger, but Charles forced him to attend the
Court.' He came to London with the solemn assurance of his
master that, "while there was a king in England, not a hair of
Strafford's head should be touched by the Parliament."
Immediately impeached of high treason by the Commons, and sent
to the Tower, he received from the king a second and more
solemn pledge, by letter, that, "upon the word of a king, you
shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune." But the "word of
a king" like Charles Stuart, had neither honor nor gratitude, nor
a decent self respect behind it. He could be false to a friend
as easily as to an enemy. When the Commons, fearing failure on
the trial of their impeachment, resorted to a bill of
attainder, Charles signed it with a little resistance, and
Strafford went bravely and manfully to the block. "As the axe
fell, the silence of the great multitude was broken by a
universal shout of joy. The streets blazed with bonfires. The
bells clashed out from every steeple."

_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 6._

The king "was as deeply pledged to Strafford as one man could
be to another; he was as vitally concerned in saving the life
and prolonging the service of incomparably his ablest servant
as was ever any sovereign in the case of any minister; yet it
is clear that for some days past, probably ever since the
first signs of popular tumult began to manifest themselves, he
had been wavering. Four days before the Bill passed the Lords,
Strafford as is well known, entreated the king to assent to
it. There is no reason to doubt the absolute sincerity with
which, at the moment of its conception, the prisoner penned
his famous letter from the Tower. That passionate chivalry of
loyalty, which has never animated any human heart in equal
intensity since Strafford's ceased to beat, inspires every
line. ... Charles turned distractedly from one adviser to
another, not so much for counsel as for excuse. He did not
want his judgment guided, but his conscience quieted; and his
counsellors knew it. They had other reasons, too, for urging
him to his dishonour. Panic seems to have seized upon them
all. The only man who would not have quailed before the fury
of the populace was the man himself whose life was trembling
in the balance. The judges were summoned to declare their
opinion, and replied, with an admirable choice of
non-committing terms, that 'upon all that which their
Lordships have voted to be proved the Earl of Strafford doth
deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason.'
Charles sent for the bishops, and the bishops, with the
honourable exception of Juxon, informed him that he had two
consciences,--a public and a private conscience,--and that
'his public conscience as a king might not only dispense with,
but oblige him to do, that which was against his conscience as
a man.' What passed between these two tenants in common of the
royal breast during the whole of Sunday, May 9th, 1641, is
within no earthly knowledge; but at some time on that day
Charles's public conscience got the better of its private
rival. He signed a commission for giving the royal assent to
the Bill, and on Monday, May 10th, in the presence of a House
scarcely able to credit the act of betrayal which was taking
place before them, the Commissioners pronounced the fatal Le
roi le veult over the enactment which condemned his Minister
to the block. Charles, of course, might still have reprieved
him by an exercise of the prerogative, but the fears which
made him acquiesce in the sentence availed to prevent him from
arresting its execution."

_H. D. Traill,
Lord Stafford,
pages 195-198._

"It is a sorry office to plant the foot on a worm so crushed
and writhing as the wretched king ... [who abandoned
Strafford] for it was one of the few crimes of which he was in
the event thoroughly sensible, and friend has for once
cooperated with foe in the steady application to it of the
branding iron. There is in truth hardly any way of relieving
the 'damned spot' of its intensity of hue even by distributing
the concentrated infamy over other portions of Charles's
character. ... When we have convinced ourselves that this
'unthankful king' never really loved Strafford; that, as much
as in him lay, he kept the dead Buckingham in his old
privilege of mischief, by adopting his aversions and abiding
by his spleenful purposes; that, in his refusals to award
those increased honours for which his minister was a
petitioner, on the avowed ground of the royal interest, may be
discerned the petty triumph of one who dares not dispense with
the services thrust upon him, but revenges himself by
withholding their well-earned reward;--still does the
blackness accumulate to baffle our efforts. The paltry tears
he is said to have shed only burn that blackness in. If his
after conduct indeed had been different, he might have availed
himself of one excuse,--but that the man, who, in a few short
months, proved that he could make so resolute a stand
somewhere, should have judged this event no occasion for
attempting it, is either a crowning infamy or an infinite
consolation, according as we may judge wickedness or weakness
to have preponderated in the constitution of Charles I. ... As
to Strafford's death, the remark that the people had no
alternative, includes all that it is necessary to urge. The
king's assurances of his intention to afford him no further
opportunity of crime, could surely weigh nothing with men who
had observed how an infinitely more disgusting minister of his
will had only seemed to rise the higher in his master's
estimation for the accumulated curses of the nation. Nothing
but the knife of Felton could sever in that case the weak head
and the wicked instrument, and it is to the honour of the
adversaries of Strafford that they were earnest that their
cause should vindicate itself completely, and look for no
adventitious redress. Strafford had outraged the people--this
was not denied. He was defended on the ground of those
outrages not amounting to a treason against the king. For my
own part, this defence appears to me decisive, looking at it
in a technical view, and with our present settlement of
evidence and treason.
{855}
But to concede that point, after the advances they had made,
would have been in that day to concede all. It was to be shown
that another power had claim to the loyalty and the service of
Strafford--and if a claim, then a vengeance to exact for its
neglect. And this was done. ... One momentary emotion ...
escaped ... [Strafford] when he was told to prepare for death.
He asked if the king had indeed assented to the bill.
Secretary Carleton answered in the affirmative; and Strafford,
laying his hand on his heart, and raising his eyes to heaven,
uttered the memorable words,--'Put not your trust in princes,
nor in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.'
Charles's conduct was indeed incredibly monstrous."

_R. Browning,
Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
(Eminent British Statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2,
pages 403-406)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford; Pym._

_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 3 (volume 1)._

_Lord Nugent,
Memorials of Hampden.
parts 5-6 (volumes 1-2)._

_Lady T. Lewis,
Life of Lord Falkland._

The following are the Articles of Impeachment under which
Strafford was tried and condemned:

"Articles of the Commons, assembled in Parliament, against
Thomas Earl of Strafford, in Maintenance of their Accusation,
whereby he stands charged with High Treason.

I. That he the said Thomas earl of Strafford hath traiterously
endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of
the realms of England and Ireland, and, instead thereof, to
introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, against law,
which he hath declared by traiterous words, counsels, and
actions, and by giving his majesty advice, by force of arms,
to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.

II. That he hath traiterously assumed to himself regal power
over the lives, liberties of persons, lands, and goods of his
majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and hath exercised
the same tyrannically, to the subversion and undoing of many,
both peers and others, of his majesty's liege people.

III. The better to inrich, and enable himself to go through
with his traiterous designs, he hath detained a great part of
his majesty's revenue, without giving any legal accounts; and
hath taken great sums of money out of the exchequer,
converting them to his own use, when his majesty was
necessitated for his own urgent occasions, and his army had
been a long time unpaid.

IV. That he hath traiterously abused the power and authority
of his government, to the increasing, countenancing, and
encouraging of Papists, that so he might settle a mutual
dependence and confidence betwixt himself and that party, and
by their help prosecute and accomplish his malicious and
tyrannical designs.

V. That he hath maliciously endeavoured to stir up enmity and
hostility between his majesty's subjects of England and those
of Scotland.

VI. That he hath traiterously broken the great trust reposed
in him by his majesty, of lieutenant general of his Army, by
wilfully betraying divers of his majesty's subjects to death,
his majesty's Army to a dishonourable defeat by the Scots at
Newborne, and the town of Newcastle into their hands, to the
end that, by effusion of blood, by dishonour, by so great a
loss as of Newcastle, his majesty's realm of England might be
engaged in a national and irreconcilable quarrel with the
Scots.

VII. That, to preserve himself from being questioned for these
and other his traiterous courses, he laboured to subvert the
right of parliaments, and the ancient course of parliamentary
proceedings, and, by false and malicious slanders, to incense
his maj. against parliaments.--By which words, counsels, and
actions, he hath traiterously, and contrary to his allegiance,
laboured to alienate the hearts of the king's liege people
from his maj. to set a division between them, and to ruin and
destroy his majesty's kingdoms, for which they do impeach him
of High Treason against our sovereign lord the king, his crown
and dignity. And he the said earl of Strafford was lord deputy
of Ireland, or lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lieutenant
general of the Army there, under his majesty, and a sworn
privy counsellor to his maj. for his kingdoms both of England
and Ireland, and lord president of the North, during the time
that all and every of the crimes and offences before set forth
were done and committed; and he the said earl was lieutenant
general of his majesty's Army in the North parts of England,
during the time that the crimes and offences in the 5th and
6th Articles set forth were done and committed.--And the said
commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of
exhibiting at any time hereafter any other Accusation or
Impeachment against the said earl, and also of replying to the
Answer that he the said earl shall make unto the said
Articles, or to any of them, and of offering proof also of the
premises, or any of them, or of any other Accusation or
Impeachment that shall be by them exhibited, as the case
shall, according to the course of parliaments, require; and do
pray that the said earl may be put to answer to all and every
the premises; and that such proceedings, examination, trial,
and judgment, may be upon every of them had and used, as is
agreeable to law and justice."

_Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 2, pages 737-739._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (March-May).
The Root and Branch Bill.

"A bill was brought in [March, 1641], known as the Restraining
Bill, to deprive Bishops of their rights of voting in the
House of Lords. The opposition it encountered in that House
induced the Commons to follow it up [May 27] with a more
vehement measure, 'for the utter abolition of Archbishops,
Bishops. Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries and Canons,' a
measure known by the title of the Root and Branch Bill. By the
skill of the royal partisans, this bill was long delayed in
Committee."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2 (volume 2), page 650._

ALSO IN:
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (October).
Roundheads and Cavaliers.
The birth of English parties.