Preface

PREFACE.

The Domestic State Papers calendared in the present volume continue the history of the reign of Charles I. during the last half of 1641 and the two following years to the close of 1643, and conclude with a volume of miscellaneous documents connected with the trial of Archbishop Laud. It will be noticed, at a rough glance, that the papers are much less numerous than during the preceding years. The reason of this has been explained in the Preface to the preceding volume; but it should be here stated that they are also more miscellaneous. They do not consist of a complete series of the correspondence of the Secretaries of State, but are collected from various sources. After the first half of 1642 their character is considerably altered, comprising only a small modicum of official correspondence, supplemented by papers of the Royalists intercepted by the Parliamentarians, and also of some Parliamentarian papers which were either brought together by the Poet Milton, (fn. 1) or have been recently collected from other series in the Record Office.

The earliest of the papers in the present volume is dated on the 1st June 1641, and is therefore almost coincident in point of time with the commencement of the revolutionary period. The ancient monarchical constitution was then destined to give way before the onward march of political events, as they hastened towards the establishment of the Commonwealth. How unwillingly the mass of the nation accepted the political situation is clearly evidenced by the letters (fn. 2) of both parties in the State. Had the controversy between Charles and his Parliament been simply of a political character, it is almost certain that an amicable solution of constitutional differences might have been arrived at, and an appeal to the ultimate arbitrament of civil war avoided.

For the anxiety displayed by the English nation at that juncture for the Protestant cause there was abundant reason, in view of what had been passing on the Continent. The attainder of Strafford and the Act for continuance of the Long Parliament were intimately associated with the religious contest, and have been treated of in the preceding volume. During the progress of the criminal proceedings against Strafford, the Roman Catholic peers found themselves in this dilemma; excluded from taking part in the trial by reason of their refusal to take the Protestation, and yet unable to offer any legitimate excuse for their abstention. In the month of May (1641), the Houses passed the Bill for securing the existing Parliament against a dissolution without its own consent; and it is difficult to see, under the circumstances, what other course they could have followed, seeing that their own lives and estates were involved in the carrying through of the policy which they had initiated. The House of Lords, justly appreciating the danger of the revolutionary change which this latter measure involved, at first proposed a compromise, and supported an amendment limiting the operation of the Bill to the space of two years, (fn. 3) but the Peers were forced to give way before the objections of the Commons. (fn. 4) These two events—the execution of Strafford and the passing of the Bill for continuance of the Long Parliament—virtually closed the period of monarchical government, and rendered it impossible for Charles's most faithful lieges any longer to do him true, because constitutional, service. Sir William Uvedale, treasurer-at-wars, and one of the most energetic members of the Council of War, writes (fn. 5) on the 11th May (1641), "this day, the King having signed the warrant for the execution of Lord Strafford upon Wednesday next, the mouth of the people is stopped. And so there will be an end of that great man." But Strafford's death did not set matters right. From that day the King's troubles grew apace, nor did the Parliament escape its share of the responsibility. If political tergiversation were to be punished capitally, then, when "Fortune turned her wheel," it might be requisite for many of the members who had taken part in this impeachment,—it cannot be called a trial,—to prepare for a similar fate. This made the Bill for the continuance of the Long Parliament a political necessity, and bound the party to a course which could only result in the overthrow of the existing Constitution. How swiftly one illegal act followed the other in the revolutionary course which resulted in the Civil War and the final overthrow of monarchical government is narrated in the correspondence contained in this volume of Calendar. Nor will it be difficult to trace the steps by which the balance in favour of right and law was transferred from the side of the Parliament to that of the King, nor how shortly this great advantage was lost by the King's indiscretion. Hyde, Falkland, and other influential statesmen who had successfully combated the illegal acts of the King, now consistently opposed the illegal acts of the Long Parliament, and ranged themselves on that side, which Hallam (fn. 6) says was, from this time, undoubtedly the side of the Constitution. As yet there was no division of the Houses into Royalists and Parliamentarians; all coincided in their expressions of loyalty to the Crown and Constitution, and probably few as yet even contemplated the possibility of their ultimate abrogation. In the Lower House the defenders of Episcopacy, which was then the great stumbling block, were in a minority, as also in the City of London, but in the country they formed a very influential party, and were not inclined to suffer the established form of worship to be interfered with, regarding, as most of the country gentlemen did, the Church of England as a constituent part of the Constitution. How anxious either party was to claim the majority of voices is curiously exemplified by two petitions from Cheshire, preserved in printed copies amongst the State Papers. (fn. 7) One of these was presented to Parliament by Sir Thos. Aston, and professed to embody the opinions of influential residents in the County Palatine of Chester, in favour of retaining Church government by Bishops, and deprecated "various petitions which have been spread to the contrary as not tending to reformation, but absolute innovation in government. "This petition was subscribed by four noblemen, more than 80 knights and esquires, 70 divines, 300 and odd gentlemen, and above 6,000 freeholders and other inhabitants. Not to be outdone by their opponents, the anti-episcopalians got up a counter petition, urging that Bishops did not exist in the time of the Apostles, and pointing out "the arbitrary government and other abuses they have introduced, and the blessings that will result from their abolition." This petition professes to have been subscribed by no fewer than eight noblemen, 199 knights and esquires, 140 divines, 757 gentlemen, and above 12,000 freeholders and others. The almost exact doubling of the signatures, Mr. Gardiner tells us, (fn. 8) struck him as suspicious when he first compared these two petitions, and Sir T. Aston's statement, that "there was "never any such petition [as the latter] seen in his shire," confirmed him in "the conviction of its being a forgery," got up by the Puritan opposition, but without its ever having been submitted to the county for signature. "The appearance of a copy of this petition amongst the State Papers, with its crowded references at the edge of the page, excites suspicion that it may have been the handiwork of 'Marginal Prynn.'" But whether we regard this latter petition from Cheshire as a forgery or as genuine matters little. It probably was, like Savile's letter to the Scots, not the work of those it professed to be drawn up by, but expressing their wishes. Thus we see that the force of public opinion was a real power in the State, even at this period, and was anxiously appealed to in the last resort. How hard both parties strove to avail themselves of this novel engine of political power is evidenced by the numerous pamphlets, gazettes, and newspapers, weekly and bi-weekly, which continuously issued from the press, notwithstanding the exertions of the Government of the day to repress them. For the first time there appears at the end of this volume a notice of the newspapers preserved amongst the State Papers belonging to the year 1643, the gazettes and newspapers forming a collection by themselves, for the sake of greater convenience. A similar list will in future occur at the end of each year; and, as time progresses, the number of those brought into this collection will be found to increase, thus marking the augmented importance attached to them by the Government. The Journals of the Commons' House bear witness to the exertions made to restrain the circulation of political literature. In order to limit the liberty of unlicensed printing, an Ordinance was issued by the Commons requiring the names of all persons bringing anything to be printed to be sent to the Stationers' Company; (fn. 9) and on the 7th June 1642 a Committee of the House was appointed to prepare an Ordinance for restraining the license of printing. (fn. 10) It must not be inferred that the Royalist and Clerical parties alone were guilty of wishing to repress the growth of public opinion as expressed in these newspapers and pamphlets. The Parliamentarians and Roundheads were equally jealous of this new power in the State, which partially filled the place formerly occupied by the clergy. Under date 14 June 1643 an Ordinance of the Lords and Commons will be found for regulating printing, and

"Suppressing the great late abuses in printing many false, seditious, and unlicensed pamphlets, to the great defamation of religion and government; also authorising the Master and Wardens of the Stationers' Company to search for and seize all books they shall find printed or reprinted by any having no lawful interest in them being entered into the Hall book to any other man as his property." (fn. 11)

As the Roundheads gained the upper hand in the Commons' House, the measures taken to repress the exuberance of political utterance in the press became more stringent, and even partook of a vindictive character. It was not any longer thought sufficient to order obnoxious writings to be publicly burnt by the hands of the hangman, but the very presses which had been employed in printing "scandalous pamphlets" were ordered to be destroyed. (fn. 12) In the collection of newspapers and gazettes preserved amongst the State Papers are many passages of interest, but, as other copies are extant in the various public libraries, it was not thought requisite to analyse their contents further than to indicate the precise period over which they extend. It was in June 1641, the date at which this volume commences, that Milton's first pamphlet, "Of Reformation touching Church Discipline," made its appearance, "the press being then free from such opinions." (fn. 13) In this brochure, written in the form of a letter to a friend, he expresses his opinion in favour of Presbyterianism as opposed to Anglicanism in answer to "A Remonstrance against Presbytery," which had recently made its appearance. It was not that Milton sought this line of literary employment for his pen out of any longing for political distinction. He tells us himself how loath he was "to lay aside his singing robes" in order to "embark in a troubled sea of noises and hoarse disputes;" but as the sea-bird feels the approaching storm, so the inspired poet of the future felt the mental agitation which presaged the social cataclysm which already shook the foundations of the ancient Constitution. The "Reformation touching Church Discipline" was only the herald of a flight of treatises and pamphlets which followed in quick succession from his and less able pens. These kept the national mind in a ferment of agitation, which at length found expression in the Parliament itself.

It was in contemplation of the difficulty involved in the attempt to reconcile the freedom of expression of thought with a due regard for political order and decency of language, that Milton entered on the most celebrated of his treatises, the Areopagitica, in which he pleaded the cause of a free press with unsurpassed eloquence. On the great question of the hour, the reformation of Church government, Milton's sympathies, we know, were with the Puritans, who as yet had scarcely made up their minds to quit the Church of England altogether, although they opposed the political conduct and status of the Bishops. (fn. 14)

As an evidence of the change which had recently come over men's minds on the question of Church government, a letter (fn. 15) of the 14th August 1641, addressed to Nathaniel Tomkyns, Prebendary of Worcester, furnishes an interesting example.

Though differing on the question of Episcopacy, the two Houses were at one in their determination to restrict the royal prerogative. This they clearly saw to be the only means of compelling Charles to follow a straightforward course.

If he were to be suffered to continue to reign, and the thought of a compulsory abdication had not yet been broached, the exercise of his personal power must be restrained within narrower limits, and for this purpose new safeguards were required, not the least efficacious of which was the countersigning of all grants, warrants, and other legal documents emanating from the Crown, by a Secretary of State or other responsible minister, thus rendering the minister, and not the sovereign, personally answerable to Parliament and the nation; it having been previously thought sufficient justification to plead the King's personal command, or his sign manual. This gave a new significance to the old legal maxim that "the King could do no wrong," which henceforward became a reality instead of a legal fiction. The exact date at which this important constitutional change took place is somewhat doubtful, for the practice seems to have been introduced about the commencement of the Long Parliament, although the royal warrant or order for its enforcement does not appear in this Calendar (fn. 16) till 10th October 1643. It is a transcript made in the time of Charles II., being one of those numerous precedents collected by Sir Joseph Williamson, then Under Secretary of State, to guide him in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative at the period of the Restoration. The endorsement, in the handwriting of Williamson, says "This does not, for many reasons, look like the genuine order, especially in that it is plain there were countersignings in 1641 and 1642, &c. Vide Signet Books at Oxford."

This order is of great importance, as it makes the practice of countersigning imperative, without which it declares all such warrants or grants, though bearing the sign manual, "shall be understood as unduly obtained," (fn. 17) and consequently invalid. This precaution was found most efficacious in checking the lavish grants by the Crown, and the illegal monopolies which had survived the most stringent Acts made against them. The criticism of this document has led us beyond the year 1641, of which we were treating, so that a regression to the 8th of June 1641 will be necessary for the right understanding of the history. It was on this day that the antiquary Selden introduced into the Commons' House three important measures.

The first declared the illegality of ship-money; the second restricted the operation of the forest laws; and the third abolished fines for neglecting to take up knighthood. This social distinction, strange to say, was then considered a burden rather than an honour. A man who neglected to be knighted was brought before the Court of Exchequer, and there fined. The Crown then offered to let all persons off who would pay a composition, considerably less than the sum would have been, and this it was now sought to abolish. In the afternoon sitting of the same day on which these Bills were introduced, two important measures were pushed through their final stages, viz., the Acts abolishing the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission These were shortly followed by a Tonnage and Poundage Bill, conveying those duties to the Crown for a limited time only, viz., till 15th July, after which it would be illegal for the King to levy customs duties of any kind without an express grant of the same from Parliament. "It is my intention in future," said the King, (fn. 18) as he gave his assent to this Bill on the 22nd June 1641, "to put myself wholly upon "the love and affection of my people for my subsistence." And it would have been well for Charles had he persevered in his expressed intention, as he had at length right and justice on his side. Unfortunately, the use he made of this great advantage soon again alienated the sympathy of the nation, and restored the ascendency of the Parliament in the City of London, which virtually held in its grasp the fate of the contending parties. The resolutions of the Houses were largely swayed by the course of public opinion in the City, on which finally rested the brunt of the contest, not only in logic, but in pecuniary resources. It will appear from the papers in this volume that most of the questions which then divided the nation were first threshed out in the Common Council and in the pulpits of the City before they were introduced into the Parliament. In support of this assertion that the City held the key of the situation, additional evidence may be gleaned from Somers's Tracts, more especially the party pamphlet of Samuel Butler, and the letter extracted from Mercurius Civicus. The influence of the City is the more observable in the course of the negotiations for a treaty with the Scots, who drew their inspiration of coming events from that quarter, from which, indeed, they hoped to obtain the reimbursement of their pecuniary outlay. Hitherto the citizens had hoped that the political storm would pass, of which they thought they saw a presage in the appointment of Oliver St. John to the office of Solicitor-General in the preceding January. This noted Puritan lawyer, as Carlyle reminds us, (fn. 19) "had married for his second wife a cousin of "Oliver Cromwell, a daughter of uncle Henry of Up"wood." This was accepted as an earnest of further changes; it was even in the wind that the King had decided on trying to adopt the Puritan leaders as his ministers. These Puritan men, under the Earl of Bedford as chief, might have been able to execute, it was confidently hoped, such reforms as had grown inevitable. "A most desirable result, if a possible one," as Carlyle observes, (fn. 20) "for of all men these had the least notion of revolting or rebelling against their King." These negotiations had proceeded so far, that early in May 1641, Hampden and Falkland had come to an understanding on Episcopacy and the reformation of the Church, and both parties were agreed as to the advisability of excluding the clergy from secular offices. But these attempts at a compromise were prematurely cut short. The King had never ceased secretly negotiating with the officers of both armies, as is evidenced by the two Army Plots, to engage the military in bringing about a forcible dissolution of the Parliament. (fn. 21) In June 1641 he sent Daniel O'Neill down to sound Conyers and Astley as to the feasibility of bringing up the army to London if the neutrality of the Scots could be assured. This coming to the ears of the leaders in the Commons, soon spread into the city, and rendered the King's cause most unpopular. The more violent spirits in the Parliament, afterwards called the "Root and Branch," including in their number Nathaniel Fiennes, John Hampden, and the younger Vane, but not Pym and Holles, (fn. 22) were not as yet formed into a separate party, although they exercised a considerable influence. Under these circumstances, it was not within the power of the Parliamentary leaders to altogether exclude the burning question which then occupied all men's minds, What form of Church government was to be preferred ? and this question involved that of personal liberty, for toleration in matters of conscience had scarcely then been thought of. As soon as this discussion commenced, the adversaries of the Court, hitherto unanimous, split up into several sections, often violently opposed to each other, so that the majority in the Commons often varied. A few prudent statesmen, seeing the opportunity which these dissensions offered, advised the King to take into his confidence the more moderate party, representing the political reformers as distinguished from the religious zealots, by which means he would prevent the combination of his enemies. With this intention, proffers of office were made to several of the leading Parliamentary statesmen, at the head of whom was Pym. "He was not," says Clarendon, (fn. 23) "of those furious resolutions against the Church of England as the other leading men were, and wholly devoted to the Earl of Bedford, who had nothing of that spirit." The King, who was sincerely attached to the Church, though of the Laudian school, had no very serious objection to make a trial of this new ministry, as we learn from a letter of Edward Nicholas (fn. 24) to Pennington, written on the 29th July 1641:

"It is here said that we shall shortly before the King's departure have a great change and addition of officers at Court, as that Lord Saye shall be made Lord Treasurer; Lord Newburgh, Master of the Wards; John Hampden, Chancellor of the Duchy; Mr. Pym, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Denzil Holles, Principal Secretary of State; and that the Earl of Bath and Lord Brooke shall be sworn of his Majesty's Privy Council.

"The business against Mr. [Henry] Percy and [Henry] Jermyn will not be made appear to be so high a crime as treason, as I am told; and Colonel [Henry] Wilmott and Capt. W. Ashburnham will, as it is hoped, be freed from any further fault than concealing a business which they were sworn to keep secret."

These political readjustments were delayed and in great measure frustrated by the all absorbing question of Church Government, which successively took the form of, 1, a Bill for taking away the right of the Bishops to vote in the Upper House; 2, the Root and Branch Bill for abolishing Episcopacy; 3, a Bill almost identical in its scope with the first-mentioned measure; and, 4, the Ordinance for abolishing Episcopacy. To trace the course of these several Bills in Parliament is beyond the limits of a Preface. Suffice it to notice that so fundamental was the difference between the Crown and Parliament on this point that, when the King's determination was signified in the House of Lords to reject the Bill for exclusion of the Bishops, Pym, on the return of the Commons to their own House, prudently moved an adjournment, "lest they should break out in some rash distemper."

On the 29th July Edward Nicholas (fn. 25) writes:—

"The Act against Bishops, Deans, and Chapters is not as yet passed the Commons, and I hope never will; for if it shall, my father and myself shall by the change of our landlords lose 1,500l. in the value of our estates; but I hope the Parliament will not hold it just to punish the tenants for the landlords' faults."

The King at this juncture, seeing a new opening, prepared himself (fn. 26) to tread once more the weary round of intrigue which had already cost him so dear. It was now known that he proposed to visit Scotland in person so soon as the treaty which had been initiated between the Parliament and the Scots should have been ratified, with the object of regaining, by the aid of the Scots, the authority which he had lost in England. As a preliminary, he had entered into secret negotiations with the Scotch Commissioners, who favoured the project, as they had not been able by their negotiations with the Parliament to secure all the concessions which their compatriots demanded. "They may be deceived," writes Wiseman, (fn. 27) "in one chief aim, as is shrewdly guessed, for altering our Church government to that of Scotland, which, notwithstanding, will never be accomplished by the general consent of Parliament." The papers in this and the preceding volume relating to the progress of the treaty with the Scots, and the disbanding of the two armies, are very numerous and replete with interest, but form a separate study by themselves. So far as the present negotiations were concerned, the points most objected to by the Commons were the demands of the Scots for an approximation in Church government, and freedom of trade between the two countries. A proviso was also proposed that war should never again be declared between them without the consent first obtained of both Parliaments. To escape from the dilemma, it was resolved that these questions should be referred back to the Commissioners for further consideration, and a vote was passed "that this House doth approve of the affection of their brethren in Scotland, in their desire of a conformity in Church government between the two nations, and doth give them thanks for it." (fn. 28) The truth was, that the Parliament relished as little as the King foreign interference with their internal affairs, (fn. 29) and Scotland at this time was virtually a foreign country, having its separate constitution and laws, though united under the same Crown. All parties were equally zealous that the treaty with the Scots should go forward as speedily as possible, though from very different reasons. Englishmen could ill brook the continued occupation of the northern counties, and the details which reached London of the inevitable hardships endured by the inhabitants of Northumberland and Durham served to strengthen the feeling of impatience. In order to facilitate the negotiations, the City signified its readiness to advance part of the money required for the disbanding of the armies, and the King assured the Houses that his assent to the treaty would not be wanting. In fact, the King had already put himself into communication with the officers of the Scottish army, as he hoped, by the proffer of large concessions to his northern kingdom, to secure the co-operation of the Scots in resisting the innovations of the Parliament in the south.

On occasion of the King's departure for Scotland, the revolutionary tendencies of the predominant party in the Lower House obtained the fullest expression. It was urged that the interests of the country ought not to be subordinated to the royal pleasure; but that if the King insisted on absenting himself from London a deputy or custos regni ought to be appointed, (fn. 30) to give the requisite sanction to the Bills which might pass both Houses, and to transact other royal functions. For this post the youthful Prince of Wales or the Elector Palatine were suggested, but for obvious reasons both were rejected, and a commission appointed with very restricted powers, to give the royal assent to Bills only. These provisions for the conduct of public business during the King's absence were considered by the Parliamentary party as anything but satisfactory, and some violent speeches were made which have not been recorded, in accordance with constitutional practice; but it is traditionally asserted that words were uttered to the effect that there was no need any longer for the observance of monarchical forms, as the King, by voluntarily absenting himself out of the country against the expressed wish of his Parliament, had virtually abdicated. It is sufficient to state that the papers in this volume lend no confirmation to such reports. But if so, " this was the first time that Republican sentiments were expressed in the debates of Parliament." (fn. 31)

"It was," says Mr. Gardiner, (fn. 32) "no mere shadowy danger which stirred the hearts of the Commons. They saw in the King's departure for Scotland the first act of the drama which, though they knew it not, was to end twelve months later in the raising of the Standard at Nottingham." There can be little doubt that the veterans who had followed Leslie through two campaigns would have formed a force capable of overcoming all opposition, joined with the Royalist cavaliers, could Charles have been successful in securing their allegiance to his cause. Of this he had the greater hopes, having already secured the good-will of the Scots' Commissioners, and Rothes and Loudoun had promised to use their good offices with Argyle, who had already been sounded by Hamilton. The argument employed to win over the Scots on this occasion appears to have been, that if the King were deprived by the English Parliament of his constitutional right to appoint to offices, he would have nothing left to reward the services of his faithful Scots. In vain the King was warned by several of his discreetist counsellors against the dangers attending this wild adventure to the north. When the King's determination was known, the excitement which moved the Houses was such as had not been witnessed since the impeachment of Strafford.

Edward Nicholas thus writes of the 29th July (fn. 33) :—

"The Commons are much troubled that the King will go on Monday come se'night, as he has declared openly, towards Scotland. They have had a conference with the Lords about presenting to his Majesty some reasons against his going until the armies are disbanded, which, if there were money ready, could not be this fortnight."

An address was presented to the King praying him, for reasons stated, to defer his journey, but all that could be obtained was the postponement of it until the following Tuesday, to enable the passing of some pressing measures in Parliament. No provision was made for carrying on the executive government, the King apparently thinking it sufficient to commit the safety of the kingdom to the care of the Earl of Essex, who was equally trusted by the Court and Parliament. On the 29th July Edward Nicholas (fn. 34) writes:—

"On Tuesday last the Earl of Essex, now Lord Chamberlain [of the Household], was by his Majesty declared at the Council Board to be General of all the Forces on this side Trent."

In a letter of the 10th of August (1641) (fn. 35) the Lord High Admiral is informed by his secretary, Mr. Smith, that "the King made account to be gone this morning by 4 o'clock, but divers things in the House not being ready for his signature, they prevailed with him to stay this day; but his Majesty was so intent upon his journey that he went not to bed all night, and came into the House about 10 o'clock in the morning, and before 11, was in his coach and gone." In passing through the English army, which was disbanding, the King did not think it advisable to stop long on his way. Still his attempts with the soldiers, particularly among the officers, were so public, that the Earl of Holland, who as CaptainGeneral of the army (fn. 36) presided over the disbanding, wrote an anxious letter on the subject to the Earl of Essex (fn. 37) on the 16th August, adding that on his return to London he would tell him more. The Secretary to the Lord High Admiral, writing to Sir John Pennington, (fn. 38) who commanded the Channel fleet, refers to the matter with evident anxiety:

"A letter of Lord Holland's from the army to the Earl of Essex, relating his fear of some storm likely to fall suddenly upon this kingdom, hath increased the jealousy, and put both Houses into a distemper; but we hope there is no cause; yet the Parliament begin to bethink themselves how to provide for the worst."

On the arrival of the King in Edinburgh, on the 14th August (1641) he hastened to the Parliament-house, where everything was prepared for his reception. As a manifestation of good-will, he would have touched with his sceptre, and thus given the royal sanction, to all the Acts which had so long been in contention. His Scottish subjects, however, though longing for the legal completion of their political desires, were not prepared to dispense with the formal ceremonials which they had always regarded as the necessary accompaniments of constitutional authority. A few days sufficed to arrange everything, and Charles gave his assent to the new Statutes.

On the 18th August, Sidney Bere writes to Pennington:—

"This day his Majesty was again in the House, and gave great satisfaction, but what will be the issue of all is yet hard to judge, being early days; but I pray God it may be answerable to that gracious proceeding of his Majesty in their regard and the confidence he puts in them, which we hope will operate to the best, and produce easy and reasonable demands. The army, we say, shall be removing some time next week, but such antedated news carries little certainty in so doubtful an age. The entertainment we have here is for the quantity very good. The Chaplain's places are supplied by Mr. Henderson and another, who say grace, but I cannot say read prayers, they being likewise extemporary; one [prays] in the beginning, then a chapter or two, after that another prayer, then a psalm, and the benediction. This [service] is [held] in the Chamber of Presence at the usual hours. The sermons have been hitherto in the parish church, though the chapel here be fitted, but after their fashion, without altar or organ. Forasmuch as I can learn, the Scotch Lords imprisoned here will find a round proceeding, unless they can clear themselves or submit,—which is a hard lesson to him that thinks himself innocent. Captain Murray has arrived here with his ship; he came this day to Court, and desired me to let you understand so much, and that he had delivered all your commands."

Before his departure the King had been careful to give the royal assent to the treaty concluded between the English Parliament and the Scots, so that nothing remained but to content them in matters of religion and public policy. This was rendered possible, as the Scots were already in good humour owing to the magnificent sum which had been assured to them by the Treaty.

By this instrument a payment of 220,000l. was secured to the Scots, as the remainder of the Brotherly Assistance which had been promised by Parliament, and was to be paid so soon as they should have crossed the Tweed; 80,000l. having already been handed over to the Scottish Commissioners by the Earl of Warwick in accordance with an order of the Commons. (fn. 39) Out of this latter sum the Scots, according to agreement, had set aside 38,888l. to indemnify the counties of Northumberland and Durham for the money owing to them for provisions. (fn. 40) In their anxiety lest the King should win over to his side the affections of the officers of the disbanded armies, the Commons took no notice of his offer to issue a proclamation of general pardon; thus leaving many of their friends exposed to prosecution upon the gravest charges. They seem to have considered this a lesser evil than the escape of certain Malignants whom they were well aware would have been included in it. The King had scarcely quitted the capital when they began to make reprisals by declaring Suckling, Henry Percy, brother of the Earl of Northumberland, and Jermyn, to be guilty of treason. Their next step was to form a Committee of Defence, to which was entrusted the duty of devising measures for the defence of the King and kingdom, securing the store of munitions at Hull, and reporting on the state of the Tower. This Committee was further to take into consideration the appointment of suitable officers to command the trained bands, in the event of their services being required. In this last instruction we see the future Militia Bill already foreshadowed. It was fortunate for the King's interest that the members chosen to sit on this Board were men of moderate views, including Falkland and Culpeper, who willingly co-operated with Vane and Pym. The Houses had not as yet divided themselves into the rival parties of Royalists and Parliamentarians, though events were rapidly moving in that direction. The King had scarcely been a week absent from Westminster, when a suggestion was made in the House for constituting a Parliamentary Committee with authority to proceed to Edinburgh in order to guard English interests during the negotiations of the King with the Scotch Parliament, and to intervene if they should find it expedient; at all events, to watch the progress of affairs, and to keep the Parliament informed of what was going on. (fn. 41) This being a matter of great importance and delicacy, the House made choice of several of its most trusted members, including Stapleton, Hampden, and Fiennes, with the Earl of Bedford. Lord Lyttelton, then the Lord Keeper, objected that he had no authority to attach the Great Seal to their Commission during the King's absence, and without it their appointment would be invalid. To overcome this objection it was proposed that the House should pass a vote requiring the Lord Keeper to do it, but D'Ewes pointed out (fn. 42) that there was no precedent for such an order, but that the difficulty might be got over by making an order of the two Houses for the Committee to proceed on their journey, and such an order had "always carried with it great authority." This was the greatest innovation in the forms of the Constitution that had as yet been attempted by the Parliament, and it carried with it the germs of still greater changes.

After a fortnight of barren sittings, the Houses on the 27th of August resolved to adjourn for six weeks, from 8th September to 20th October. Before they separated two important Committees were appointed. One, as above stated, was to follow the King into Scotland. It was composed of six members, viz., the Earl of Bedford, Lord Howard, Sir Wm. Armyn, Sir Philip Stapleton, Nathaniel Fiennes, and John Hampden. The other, for the Defence of the King and Kingdom, was more numerous and invested with larger powers. It sat at Westminster during the adjournment of the two Houses, and of it Pym acted as President or Chairman. The House of Lords took similar measures, being only too glad to be relieved for a space from the duty of endorsing the will of the Lower House. During their short vacation the members spread themselves over the country, eager to expound their sentiments or communicate their misgivings as to the success of the present policy. Both political parties, under the appearance of a truce, were seeking to strengthen themselves in the country, and communicating with their constituents as to the advisability of carrying on the contest in case it should be driven to the bitter end of civil war.

The Parliamentary Commissioners no sooner reached Edinburgh than they found their position anything but enviable. The King absolutely declined their assistance, and refused to sanction their interference in the matters in treaty between himself and the Scottish Parliament. In this predicament they applied for further instructions. Their intelligence, however, was of the most ominous character. On the very day of their arrival they found the King surrounded by his Scottish nobles, receiving the congratulations of his northern subjects, at a banquet in the great hall of the Parliament House. (fn. 43) The Lord Provost drank the health of the King and Queen with the heartiest expressions of loyalty, and the leading Presbyters vied with each other in congratulations on "the happy intervention of the unity in form of religion" in both kingdoms. The particulars of this entertainment are graphically described by Bere in his letter of the 30th August to Sir John Pennington: (fn. 44)

When such were the rejoicings in the neighbouring kingdom, where the civil strife had first commenced, at the presence of their Sovereign, it was hard to conceive how the same event could have filled the hearts of Englishmen with dismay; but such was the fact. The more the Scots expressed themselves satisfied, the more the Commonwealth party in Parliament were chagrined. It was not that they envied the Scots their good fortune in having at length obtained all which they had so ardently desired, and even risked the miseries attendant on civil war to attain, added to invasion on the side of England, but a dread had seized them of a coalition being entered into by the Scots and English malcontents, with the object of putting an end to the Parliament by military force. Their misgivings were fortunately prematurely frustrated, for Argyle, following the lead of the English Parliament, persevered in demanding that neither political nor judicial offices should be filled up without the approval of the proposed candidates in the Scottish Parliament. This was precisely the demand which had induced the King to appeal to the intervention of the Scots to prevent its being carried out in England. It was therefore with an ill grace that he was compelled to accept it in Scotland.

A concise view of the present state of affairs is contained in a letter of Secretary Vane (fn. 45) of the 30th October 1641.

"The Parliament continues here still stiff and resolved; and whatever intelligence you may have had in the South, I do not find his Majesty is like to have his will here [in Scotland]. It is high time to give over talking of party, and that King and people should heartily unite, for this is not a time to contend; if both go not one way, it will not do well. You know we have long foreseen these issues. In England, though you say nothing to me of it, I understand business grows to a great height. Three kingdoms in this condition, no money and little affection, should be well thought of, and the Catholic Romish Princes abroad all drawing to a peace, if time be not suddenly redeemed, divisions amongst ourselves cease, and a face of unity both in Church and kingdom. I will say no more, but we cannot be happy if we change not our counsels. This business is like to hasten his Majesty's return sooner than I expected, though I cannot send you the day."

Now that the Scots had obtained their desires, it was natural that Charles should look with hope to their assistance in restoring his authority in the South. This he would appear to have taken for granted, for though Rothes had unfortunately expired on the 23rd August, yet the great General Leslie had promised to aid the King so far as legitimately he might with true affection and loyalty. The King communicated this good news to the Queen; which apparently being interpreted in too literal a sense, roused a sudden fear in the breasts of his political opponents, as shown by the letter of the Lord Admiral's Secretary to Sir John Pennington: "This letter of yours," writes the Secretary, "was very requisite to clear a suspicion bred in the Parliament by an information that the whole fleet was gone to Scotland; but when they saw your letter they were satisfied that only two ships were gone thither. A letter of Lord Holland's from the army to the Earl of Essex, relating his fears of some storm likely to fall suddenly upon this kingdom, hath increased the jealousy, and put both Houses into a distemper; but we hope there is no cause; yet the Parliament begin to bethink themselves how to provide for the worst." The fears of the Parliament were not participated in by the City. There great satisfaction was expressed at the King's proceedings and the hopes of returning peace and prosperity, following on a perfect reconciliation with Scotland, gave a new turn to the current of public opinion. This time it was not only the Lord Mayor and Aldermen who expressed their confidence in the King's good affections, but the whole commonalty joined in the rejoicings. It would appear to have been known in the City before the King's return that no fear was to be entertained of the intervention of the Scots by armed force. The reserve army in Scotland, which had been retained on foot until the negotiations with England should be concluded, and which we learn from the Venice correspondence the King had hoped to have had placed at his disposal, was now disbanded, and the promised aid of the Scottish leaders was shown to have been only complimentary; or at least only to mean their moral support to which the City was far from objecting. The popular voice at this time is expressed in a letter of Wiseman of the 11th November; (fn. 46) "I pray God bless our "good King and send him safe hither again. I know not what to think of it, all things going so mysteriously, both here [in London] and there [in Scotland], and will do so still, so long as our Houses of Parliament do not better agree."

In the midst of this domestic turmoil, news was brought on the 1st November that a fearful insurrection had broken out all of a sudden in Ireland. The Irish Roman Catholics, taking advantage of the incompetent administrations which succeeded that of Strafford, had risen in arms against their Protestant fellow subjects, whose houses they wasted with fire and sword in every direction, often massacreing the inmates, who as a rule were taken unawares. In justification of their barbarous proceedings, the Irish rebels invoked the name of the Queen, and pleaded that they were warranted in doing what they did by a commission received from the King. (fn. 47) This last point has been justly doubted, and there is nothing in this volume which will entirely clear it up; but in a letter written in confidence by Secretary Vane (fn. 48) to Sir Thos. Roe, occurs the following:—

"I would I could tell you as much from Ireland, where within these few days a great revolt has happened, which, no doubt will soon spread abroad to the discrediting of his Majesty's affairs; but that you may the better meet such rumours, I send herewith a copy of the relation sent by the Lords Justices themselves unto his Majesty; by which will appear how miraculously it has pleased God to discover those malicious plots, whereby the Lords Justices in their prudence and care have so far prevented these wicked designs that Dublin and the Castle are secured, so that by the succours which from both kingdoms will be sent with all speed we hope soon to master this rebellion to the better securing of that kingdom for all time to come."

This conspiracy, which had long been preparing, was only disclosed by accident (fn. 49) on the 22nd October to Sir William Parsons on the eve before Dublin Castle was to have been surprised. Everywhere else the insurrection met with but slight resistance, owing to the arms of the Protestants in the North having two years before been given up by Strafford's orders, lest they should be employed in assisting the Presbyterians in Scotland against the King's army, (fn. 50) so that within the first week all the fortified posts or castles were in the hands of the rebels. The reports circulated at the time, both as to the numbers who perished and the tortures inflicted on the Protestants, were, there is reason to believe, to a great extent fictitious; (fn. 51) but there can be no doubt as to the savagery of the native Irish towards the English, whom they regarded as foreigners and heretics.

May, in his History of the Long Parliament, (fn. 52) estimates the number of those who perished at 200,000, which has been properly reduced by Clarendon (fn. 53) to 40,000 or 50,000, and Sir Wm. Petty further reduces it to 37,000 in all. It is probable from the correspondence of the Lords Justices in Ireland, and the inquiry made into the subject in 1641–5, that even these last figures are excessive; Lingard (fn. 54) in his account of the Ulster rebellion, omits all mention of the massacre, and in a note at the end of the volume endeavours to disprove it altogether. It may be of service to the historian to mention that the collection of documents sworn to before the Committee of Inquiry, and preserved in Trinity College, Dublin, and known as "the Celebrated Depositions," have recently been treated by Mr. Gilbert in the Eighth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission. In estimating the value to be attached to them there is great diversity of opinion, as shown by Miss Hickson's recent work in two volumes, (fn. 55) containing 217 of these depositions, some of which were taken before the Royalist and others before Republican Commissioners, either in the years immediately following the outbreak, or after the Civil War had been brought to an end by very stern treatment.

In the dearth of documentary evidence relating to Irish matters, it is impossible to assert positively that the King's secret negotiations with the Irish Roman Catholics were known to the Parliamentary leaders. The whole course of conduct, however, initiated by Pym would lead to this inference, otherwise it would be difficult to explain what induced the Parliament to proceed with so extraordinary a measure as the Remonstrance. In this manifesto—

"All the grievances and abuses of many years past are set out; the contestation now is whether to publish it in print to the public view, or by petition to his Majesty. It was so equally carried on a division that there were but 11 voices different. It seems there are great divisions between the two Houses, and even in the Commons' House, which if not suddenly reconciled may cause very great distractions amongst us. It is the fear of many wise and well wishing men, who apprehend great distempers." (fn. 56)

How variously the policy embodied in this manifesto struck different minds is exemplified by a passage from May's History of the Long Parliament, (fn. 57) in which he acknowledges himself unable to comprehend its true significance, "for mine own part I will make no judgment upon it, nor can we truly judge by the success of things, for such an unhappy genius ruled those times that no endeavours proved successful, nor did any actions produce their right effects." The Under Secretary to the Admiralty, in writing to the Admiral in the Downs, on the 16th December 1641, (fn. 58) seems to have been equally puzzled by the perversity of the times.

Already the phrase "King Pym," (fn. 59) here met with for the first time in these papers, had become a by-word in the City. The new Lord Mayor, Sir Richard Gurney, was a declared Royalist, and most of the Aldermen were of his way of thinking. Under these circumstances the message from the King "that in order to do honour to the City, he in company with the Queen intended on their way to Westminster to pass through London," was received with enthusiasm, and preparations were commenced to give him a magnificent reception at the cost of the municipality. On the 25th November, with the bells ringing and flags flying from the housetops, which were crowded with spectators, the King proceeded in a stately cavalcade to the banquet at the Guildhall. (fn. 60) On this solitary occasion during his reign he had laid himself out to gain the hearts of the citizens. (fn. 61) He promised to restore to them their forfeited possessions in Londonderry, to restrict the numbers of his privileged servants, and to restrain the invidious protections given by the Lords to their retainers; he also proposed to pass such laws as might be required for the better advancement of trade, which had sadly declined during the late disturbances, and to confirm their Charter with such extensions as might bring the election of City officers within less compass, and add all the suburbs to their government. The interests of religion, he assured his City audience, were very dear to him, and that he was "determined to maintain the Protestant religion in its purity as it had been established in the reigns of Elizabeth and his father King James," and he added, "this I will do, if need be, at the hazard of my life and all that is dear to me."

In these words, Charles took up the challenge of the Remonstrance. (fn. 62) There was evidently to be no compromise with Puritanism; no attempt to conciliate opponents. Presbyterians and Roman Catholics were to be alike subjected to the Penal Statutes. And, strangest of all, it would appear to have been the prevailing impression of those about the Court that Parliament would support Charles in this high-handed proceeding. (fn. 63) "I believe" writes Thos. Wiseman (fn. 64) "that the Parliament will not cease to sit till the business of religion be better settled, and the Sectaries and Separatists, whereof in London and the parts contiguous there are more than many, be suppressed and punished." With these sentiments, although applauded by the City dignitaries, the bulk of the citizens were not in accord, and the King soon discovered that he had failed in his second grand design to restore the regal power.

At first the reaction which the King's unadvised speech at the banquet had produced amongst the lower class citizens was not felt in high quarters, and on the 3rd December a deputation, comprising the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Councillors, waited by appointment on the King to thank him for his gracious promises given at the Guildhall to enlarge their Charter, and to present two petitions, the substance of which is printed in Maitland's London. The power of the City magnates, however, was already broken. Continuous deputations from the citizens waited on the Commons' House, not only "the baser sort," as at first, "but good numbers of the same faction, accoutred in the best manner they could, and in coaches, to prevent the aspersion that they were the basest sort of people only which were that way affected." (fn. 65) Their complaints were chiefly directed against "the ill-affected persons in the City who endeavoured to hinder their petition for the removal of the Popish Lords and Bishops out of the Upper House, wherein my Lord Mayor was comprehended; who, the day before, had ordered all the constables to raise their watches and be ready in arms, which was very ill resented by the House." (fn. 66) It was thus clear that the King's trust in the City had deceived him; the magnates no longer represented the voice of the City. Sidney Bere, the Under Secretary to the Admiralty, perceiving this, wrote to his friend Pennington, the Admiral commanding in the Downs, "I pray God we find not that we have flattered ourselves with an imaginary strength and party in the City and elsewhere, which will fall away if need should be." (fn. 67)

A still graver symptom of the hostile feeling of the citizens was given by their conduct in the streets. Ever since the Christmas holidays began, writes the Under Secretary to the Admiralty, (fn. 68) the assembling of rude multitudes of the baser sort of people threatens a desperate confusion.

"The first pretended cause of this was the making Colonel Lunsford Lieutenant of the Tower, which begat so general discontent that his Majesty was pleased to remove him after two or three days, and put Sir John Byron in his place, having made the other a knight, and, I am told, given him 500l. a year pension. But the people not being, as it seems, sufficiently persuaded of his removal on Monday continuing their insolencies, and meeting Lunsford at Westminster, they fell to blows, in which disorder divers were slightly hurt; one of their chief leaders then was Sir Richard Wiseman, who was also hurt. In fine, these distempers have so increased by such little skirmishes that now the train bands keep watch everywhere, all the courtiers are commanded to wear swords, and a guard house is built within the rails by Whitehall; all which fills every one with fears and apprehensions of greater evils. This day there has been great debating in the Houses, and is still. The bishops having protested against all the Acts made this Parliament against them, 12 of them are now committed, and two sent for, whereof York is one."

That this is a true picture of the state of affairs immediately preceding the attempt to seize the five members is vouched for by the letters of Captain Carteret, (fn. 69) calendared in this volume. Carteret, who held the office of Comptroller of the Navy, was, as we are told by Clarendon, (fn. 70) a man of such great eminence and reputation in naval command, that the Parliament, in a crisis of much difficulty, notwithstanding his Royalist opinions, named him for their Vice-Admiral. These letters, which form the official correspondence of Sir John Pennington, who as Admiral commanding the Channel fleet in the Downs, received constant information of what was going on from the most trustworthy sources, are of extreme value, often being the unique authority for particulars, as in the above quotations. They were seized by the Parliament, no doubt in 1642, at the time when Pennington was sent for to be examined before a Committee of both Houses. (fn. 71)

In many instances the details given in this correspondence are confirmed by the valuable manuscript Journal of D'Ewes, a member of the Long Parliament, who gives a faithful description of the popular tumults at Westminster. This most curious and original record of what was passing in Parliament and at Court at this important juncture, is contained in five separate volumes of rough notes jotted down by D'Ewes in the intervals of his pressing engagements, so that they are somewhat confused; in some places defective, and in others re-duplicative, requiring careful scrutiny, but are entirely trustworthy. They now form Nos. 162–166 of the Harleian Collection in the British Museum.

On this ever memorable New Year's eve (31st December 1641) the physical and moral atmosphere were alike charged with storm-clouds. So severe a season had not been experienced for many winters. Ex-secretary Windebank, writing on this day from Paris, (fn. 72) speaks of the extraordinary storms that were prevalent there, and of "the very fierce frost methinks much exceeding those in England;" while the Admiral commanding in the Downs compares the storms he experienced at sea to those still more terrible storms that were brewing on land. The events immediately antecedent to the King's attempt to seize the five members in the Commons' House are of great historical interest, as it would appear to have been owing to the flattering reception he had experienced in the City, that the King came to the resolve of putting in practice his long contemplated design of securing his political opponents in Parliament, before his newly-acquired popularity should wane. That his resolution to act at once in this matter was suddenly taken there can be little doubt, but the design had long been planned. So far back as the 30th November 1641 an attack on Parliament was expected, of which we have evidence in the Journals. On this day Pym was entrusted by the Commons to carry up to the Lords their resolutions in favour of a guard for the Houses, which ought to be constituted of such bodies of the Trained Bands of London as they had selected. In his speech on this occasion Pym does not disguise the fact that there was danger of a surprise " intended against the "persons of divers members of both Houses," as had recently taken place in the Scottish Parliament. It is also clear that Pym himself knew of the intended design to hazard an impeachment of some Parliament men at least four days before the attempt on the 4th January 1642.

The reasons for the King's action have been as variously stated as the mode of the proceeding, but there can be little doubt that it was owing to the fear entertained at Court of an impeachment being preferred in Parliament against the Queen herself. It could no longer be concealed that her meddling in the two Army Plots, the Irish plots, and her intrigue with the Pope, had given great offence. The Parliament was equally displeased at her political intrigues with the ex-secretary Windebank (fn. 73) and Lord Digby, who since his declaration "that Parliament was not free," had been regarded with political animosity. This, although it may be accepted as the real cause of proceedings being taken at once by the King, (fn. 74) does not explain the nature of the charges to be brought against the five members. Over these there has been much controversy, although a manuscript copy of the "Articles of High Treason and other high misdemeanours," which were preferred by the Attorney-General in the Upper House, against Lord Kimbolton and the five members, still exists amongst the State Papers. (fn. 75) These Articles of Treason were seven in number, and were read from a paper which Sir Edward Herbert, the Attorney-General, when subsequently put upon his trial, asserted that he had received directly from the King, and may have been the very copy here calendared, as it is endorsed by Secretary Nicholas, "Articles of Treason against Pym and the rest." That they were sufficiently ample to embrace any or all of the versions adopted by the several historians as the grounds of the charges against the five members will be evident on a perusal of them. But the question remains, which version are we to prefer as the true one, or the one on which the King relied to obtain a conviction. Clarendon and Hallam attribute the attack upon the members to their political conduct in Parliament, and the desire of the King and Queen "to strike terror into the Parliament and regain the power that had been wrested from their grasp." (fn. 76) A careful examination of these Articles, however, will lead to the inference that it was their political intrigue with the Scottish leaders, conveyed in the words of the fourth Article, "That they have trayterously invited and incouraged a foreign power to invade his Majesty's kingdom of England," this foreign power being Scotland. This Article was that relied upon for bringing them within the law of treason. Thomas Wiseman (fn. 77) thus writes to Sir John Pennington on the 11th November, "In the enclosed pamphlet you may likewise perceive what a gallant speech Marquis Hamilton hath made in the Parliament of Scotland since his re-admission into the King's favour, and that it now appears who is the patron of those members of ours that carry the greatest sway in the Commons." It will be remembered that in the preceding volume of Domestic Calendar, notice was called to the fact that Strafford had intended to have accused certain members of both Houses of high treason, on the ground of their correspondence with the Scottish leaders, only "they were too quick for him." It needs no stretch of imagination to discover a ready explanation from the additional information acquired by the King in Scotland, why he should now determine to proceed on the original charges; and as much is conveyed in his expression "that it was a treason which they should all thank him for discovering." In strictness of law there can be little doubt that their correspondence with the Scots while in arms against the King was of a treasonable nature, and possibly Savile's letter inviting the Scots to cross the Borders had come into the King's hands. But in the eyes of their fellow members these doings were held to be fully justified by the danger into which both countries had been thrown by the action of the King in commencing "the Bishops' wars." While the Articles were being publicly read by the Attorney-General, the trouble and agitation were extreme, we are told, in both Houses, and their Lordships, to use the expression of Clarendon, were "appalled."

The Commons, upon receiving a message from the King demanding the arrest of the five members, a copy of which is preserved amongst the State Papers, (fn. 78) appointed a Committee, a list of whose names is here given, (fn. 79) to attend the King with their answer.

"That this message from His Majesty is a matter of great consequence. It concerns the privilege of Parliament, and therein the privilege of all the Commons of England. That this House will take it into serious consideration, and will attend his Majesty with an answer in all humility and duty with as much speed as the greatness of the business will permit, and that in the meantime this House will take care that these gentlemen mentioned in the message shall be ready to answer any legal charge laid against them."

The other transactions of this day are similarly reported in the Journals and in the valuable pencil notes of Sir Ralph Verney. (fn. 80) These latter give us the best account of what took place on that 4th of January (1642). In the morning, when the House met, the five gentleman who were to be accused came into the House and there received information that they should be taken away by force. Upon this the House sent to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, to let them know how their privileges were like to be broken, and the City put in danger, and requested a guard for their own safety, but no trained bands arrived. The Commons likewise sent some of their members to the Inns of Court, to let them know "how they heard that they were tampered withal to assist the King against them, and therefore they desired them not to come to Westminster." The fact being that only five days previously "500 gentlemen of the Inns of Court "had come to offer their services to the King." (fn. 81) Meanwhile, the Commons, apparently having doubts whether the King would ever accomplish his design, continued their debate, denouncing the Attorney-General's articles of impeachment (fn. 82) as a scandalous libel, in which resolution the Lords joined. (fn. 83) They further declared that the originators of these charges must be detected and punished, in order to secure the Commonwealth against them. Then the House adjourned till one of the clock for dinner. When the House met again, replies were received from the Inns of Court (fn. 84) that the lawyers had gone to Whitehall, "having only an intent to defend the King's person, but would likewise, to their uttermost, also defend the Parliament, being not able to make any distinction between the King and Parliament." One of their own members, Nathaniel Fiennes, who on a previous occasion had brought intelligence of the Army Plot, rose and stated that during the dinner hour he had ascertained from the officers at Whitehall that they were directed to follow Sir William Fleming, who was one of those sent round to call the lawyers to the King's aid. The Earl of Essex, as Lord Chamberlain of the Household, likewise sent word that the King intended to come to the House of Commons and seize upon them there, and that they should absent themselves. (fn. 85) The House, on receiving this intimation, in order "to avoid all tumult, moved that the five members be commanded to absent themselves, but entered no order for it on the Journals." (fn. 86) The news of the King's coming with a troop of armed followers was soon confirmed by a message sent from the French Ambassador (fn. 87) to Mr. Fiennes. This message was entrusted for delivery to a gentleman of French descent named Captain Hercules Langres, who, Heath (fn. 88) states, was in the service of the Queen. On Langres reaching the lobby of the House of Commons, Fiennes left his seat and went to speak with him. Hearing that the King was already on his way to the House, having taken his coach at Whitehall, and was coming in haste with an armed troop of retainers, (fn. 89) Fiennes at once communicated the intelligence to the Speaker Lenthal, amidst a scene of extraordinary excitement. For this statement we have the authority of the French Ambassador, who writes "J'avois prévenu mes amis, et ils s'étoient mis en sûreté." (fn. 90) Before the discovery of D'Ewes's notes, historians were inclined to question the seriousness of this statement, and to attribute it to French vanity. There can now be little doubt that "the noble "gentleman who wishes well to this nation" of D'Ewes's narrative was the French Ambassador; and he is said to have been present overnight at the discussion which took place in the Queen's rooms after the decision taken by the King on consultation with " certain members of the Privy Council who were also members of the Parliament." (fn. 91) This last particular we learn from Dr. Bates, one of the King's physicians, who is probably correct, though the statement is in direct opposition to Hallam's assertion (fn. 92) "that the King was guided by bad private advice, and cared not to let any of his Privy Council know his intentions, lest he should encounter opposition." To this conclusion Hallam probably came from the evident impolicy of the rash step, and in ignorance of the above statement to the contrary. The whole of Charles's history, however, bears witness to the frequency of his rejecting the advice of the most prudent councillors who remained with him on occasions, so that we are not to suppose that those consulted were all in favour of this project. On the contrary, we are told that several urged him against it. We also know that Lord Mandeville, now Kimbolton in his own right, had received a like warning with the five members, the day before, from a very unexpected quarter, the Gatehouse prison. Here the Poet Marston was secluded in the debtors' ward, but not so fast that he did not receive intelligence of this intended coup-de-main from some of the Jesuits or priests who were likewise incarcerated there. This warning he communicated to his patron in a letter still extant amongst the family papers at Kimbolton Castle, and which is printed in John Forster's "Arrest of the Five Members." Notwithstanding his researches into this intricate matter, Mr. Forster has fallen into an extraordinary blunder, owing to his having misread a passage of D'Ewes MS. notes. (fn. 93) D'Ewes writes, "he got through the multitude of those soldiers and ruffians, and, coming to the House, acquainted Mr. Nathaniel Fynes with the King's resolution." (fn. 94)

What followed has been so graphically described in a letter calendared in this volume from the pen of Captain Slingsby, who was himself an active participator in the events, that little can be added to it. He tells us himself that he was one of the troop who marched down to the House with the King. He describes how all parts of the Court were thronged with officers of the disbanded army and gentlemen armed with swords and pistols, both the King's guard and the pensioners. The reader is referred to the letter at page 242.

It is a curious evidence of the conservatism of English institutions that the memory of this political struggle of the 17th century is still commemorated at the first sitting of a new Parliament. On these occasions it is customary for the four City members to attend in court suits or in uniform and to take their seats on the front Treasury Bench, which seats they afterwards vacate in favour of the Ministry of the day. This honourable position is accorded to them in consequence of the services rendered by the citizens in sheltering the five members who fled to them for protection, and the act of the Corporation in defence of the privileges of Parliament, then threatened with extinction. In Forster's "Arrest of the Five Members" may be seen the entry of the proceedings as they appear on the journals of the Court of Common Council, and there will also be found an account of the subsequent thanks of Parliament to the City of London.

In this narrative no mention has been made of Lucy, Countess of Carlisle, (fn. 95) widow of Lord Hay, afterwards Earl of Carlisle, whom she married in the autumn of 1617. This lady, who is occasionally mentioned in these papers, was the sister of the Earl of Northumberland. The suspicion which naturally attached to her as being one of the ladies at Court most intimate with the Queen, and probably one of the few present in the presence-chamber when the news of the King's resolve was made known, added to her being on terms of intimate friendship with Pym and other leaders of the Parliamentary party, have led to the supposition of her having conveyed to Essex the news of the King's intention. That the Queen was of this opinion, as related in the Memoirs of Madame de Motteville, is quite possible, and probably she was never disabused of this conceit, but nevertheless it wants confirmation. The information which the Commons acted on, as we have before seen, was obtained through the French Ambassador and the Earl of Essex, whose position as Lord Chamberlain of the Household precluded any possibility of his being in error on such matters. It is noteworthy that the Parliament had expressed their full confidence in Essex by requesting that he might have the command of the guard for the Houses that they had petitioned the King for, but which favour the King had expressed his reluctance to grant, suggesting that the Earl of Lindsey, who, as Lord High Chamberlain, had the special charge of the Houses, would be the right person to be intrusted with the command of their guard, but whose services the Houses declined.

Late in the night of the 4th of January 1642, the day of the King's attempt upon the House of Commons, the Lord Mayor Gurney, who was in the confidence of the Court, sent a circular letter to the aldermen responsible for the security of their wards. The draft of the letter preserved amongst the State Papers is to Portsoken Ward, (fn. 96) requiring the alderman to appoint a "substantial double watch and ward of able men, well weaponed and furnished with halberts and muskets," to be stationed day and night at all the gates and landing-places within the City bounds. And further, it was required of each alderman "that yourself take the service, the danger of the times considered, personally to heart and care; And that you, your deputy, or some one of the Common Councilmen, in person do by turn watch every night, until you have further order to the contrary from the chief magistrate." This draft letter was apparently brought back to the Court at Whitehall that the King might see what precautions had been taken, and so avoid countenancing any attempt to surprise the City on the part of the Cavaliers. We learn from Clarendon (fn. 97) that on this occasion "the shops of the City generally were shut up, as if an enemy were at their gates ready to enter and to plunder them." The King's Warrant (fn. 98) dated on this day, the draught of which is preserved amongst these papers, requiring that a search be made throughout the City for arms, and security be taken of the owners "that they may be responsible for the same and their intentions therewith," added to the excitement, and made men think that some immediate action against the City was in contemplation. If such had been the case the precautions which had been taken frustrated it. It may be that the Lord Mayor had in this matter miscalculated, as the King had done, and instead of finding the City trained bands ready to abide his bidding, found them determined on the defence of those who had sought shelter under their municipal organisation. But of this we have no evidence. The letter of the Lord Mayor here preserved will be read with interest for the proof it affords of the orderly government and military organisation of the City at this period. In the 17th century, London, notwithstanding its comparative smallness of population, filled a much more important position with regard to the Government of the country than it does at the present time. The united action of its trained bands, in the absence of a standing army, gave it an influence to which there is nothing to be compared at the present day. (fn. 99) The loans of the London citizens alone had made it possible for the House of Commons to disband the two armies; and without the loans of the London citizens (fn. 100) the Parliament would find it impossible to provide for the campaign in Ireland, which was now a pressing necessity.

When the resources of the City began to fail, John Pym, who directed the policy of the Parliament, and was by nature a distinguished financier, developed a novel source of supply by rendering the Excise a general impost, whereas formerly it had been confined to a few commodities, and those chiefly of foreign import. The ordinance for its establishment is calendared at page 484. The reason here given for resorting to this new mode of levying money is "that the malignants and neutrals who have hitherto by cunning ways evaded payment of their share of the general burdens, may thus be compelled to pay their proportionable parts of these charges, and the subject in general be rated and taxed with as much ease and indifference as may be." These novel burdens were the more readily submitted to, as the nation felt them to be imperatively called for if the integrity of the English dominions was to be maintained.

In the before-quoted letter of Captain Slingsby (fn. 101) he describes the courtiers who attended the King as "the illaffected party" and makes them speak very favourably of the Irish "as those whose grievances were great, their demands moderate, and who may stand the King in much stead." But such was not the opinion of the citizens and country gentlemen.

They could tolerate with a comparatively even temper much tergiversation and backsliding both in religion and politics, but what they could not endure was the King's secret negotiations with the Irish Roman Catholics, whom they regarded as the natural enemies of liberty and true religion. (fn. 102) The Irish on their part saw their only safety in the triumph of the Royalist cause, and determined at all risks to deliver themselves and the throne from the English Puritans, their common oppressors. In this state of affairs there was no neutral ground, and Charles was compelled, though reluctantly, to choose his side. In a letter of Secretary Vane (fn. 103) of the 3rd November, we read,—

"His Majesty is impatient to hear from the Lords Justices of Ireland a second time, also what advice the Parliament will give his Majesty touching Ireland, who has made this day a proposition to the Parliament here touching the relief of that kingdom; whereupon they have made a Committee to consider it, but will resolve nothing till they understand the sense of England more than to be in readiness to help their countrymen in the North of Ireland."

The idea had already been entertained of not intrusting the choice of officers for the troops destined for Ireland to the King, and after his attempt to seize the five members the nomination of the leaders for the militia became a positive demand embodied in the Militia Bill.

The aim of the Houses in presenting this Bill to Charles in February 1642, and his refusal to pass it, which led by rapid steps to the commencement of the Civil War, was not so much to remove the uncertainties of administration by a general provision which might settle for all time the relative position of the Sovereign and the two Houses, for in effect it left them much as before; but as a temporary expedient to place the command of the sword in the hands of those they could control. In fact its leading object was to make the Lords Lieutenants of every county answerable for the quiet of their several districts, and for this purpose it was necessary to nominate them, the leaders of the trained bands under the immediate orders of the two Houses, and to be irremovable by the King for two years. "No one," says Hallam, (fn. 104) can "pretend that this was not an encroachment on the prerogative of the Crown," but its object was nevertheless intended as a guarantee of peace.

By reference to the list printed in "the Parliamentary History" (fn. 105) of the officers recommended by the Houses to be intrusted with the command of the Militia or Trained Bands, as they were more frequently termed in the writings of that period, it will be seen that many of them were Royalists, which dispels the idea that it was intended as a revolutionary measure. The result, however, of the passing of the Bill would have been to have transferred the power of the sword for the time to the Parliament, and thus precluded any possibility of a reaction, which was feared from the inconstant mind of the King.

"When this Bill," says Clarendon, (fn. 106) "had been with much ado accepted and first read, there were few men who imagined it would ever receive further countenance; but now there were very few who did not believe it to be a very necessary provision for the peace and safety of the kingdom. So great an impression had the late proceedings made upon them, that with little opposition it passed the Commons, and was sent up to the Lords," but was rejected by the King; so that the Parliament were compelled to fall back on the Ordinance for the Militia, which they had already approved. (fn. 107)

By the 11th June most of the counties had signified their acceptance of the Ordinance for embodiment of the Trained Bands under the leaders appointed by Parliament. The King, as a protest against these innovations, issued Commissions of Array, (fn. 108) directing that the Trained Bands were to rally round the officers bearing his Commission, and were not to obey the Parliamentary officers who had been set over them. This produced a fierce controversy in almost every county and fortified town, where the two parties often came to blows, the Parliamentarians asserting that these Commissions of Array were illegal. On the 9th of August Charles issued a proclamation, proclaiming the Earl of Essex and the officers who served under him traitors, unless within six days they laid down their arms. In retaliation for this step the Commons required the whole of their members, and such as held office under them, to swear that they would live and die with Essex. At the same time the Parliament committed Sir Richard Gurney, the Lord Mayor, to prison for having been too zealous in the Royalist cause, and preferred an impeachment against the City Recorder, Sir Thomas Gardiner. Affairs now advanced by rapid strides towards the open declaration of hostilities, and on the 12th Charles issued a proclamation summoning his lieges to rally round the Royal Standard which was to be set up on the 22nd at Nottingham. (fn. 109) This town is said to have been chosen in order that the campaign might be opened as near to London as possible.

The Parliament on the other side were equally energetic in their preparations for the commencement of hostilities. (fn. 110) So long back as the 10th of May (1642) they had ordered a review of the London Trained Bands which took place in Finsbury Fields, where 8,000 soldiers defiled before the two Houses; and on the 26th July, when hostilities had commenced, no fewer than 5,000 Londoners voluntarily listed themselves in one day in Moorfields, who, with other volunteers then in readiness, formed a force of 10,000 strong, and being committed to the charge of their officers, were immediately distributed into regiments and ordered to march to join the army under Essex. Of this body was one Nehemiah Wharton, nine of whose letters, written in the summer and autumn of 1642, are preserved amongst these papers. They supply us with some thrilling scenes at the commencement of the Civil War, before the strife had assumed a determinate form. They are addressed to Mr. George Willingham, a city merchant, whose business sign was the Golden Anchor in St. Swithin's Lane, with whom Wharton had been associated in the capacity of clerk or head apprentice. These letters have been printed by the late Sir Henry Ellis in Archæologia, vol. xxxv., pp. 310–334.

Carlyle, however, seems not to have been aware of them, for in his criticism of the letter from Oliver Cromwell to Mr. Willingham, printed as the third in his series of Cromwell correspondence, he says, "I have found no " vestige anywhere in nature of this Mr. Willingham," but surmises that he was a London Puritan forward in getting up the London Petition and other such matters. (fn. 111) Besides these letters of Wharton, there are several letters and other family papers of this Mr. Willingham in the preceding volume of Calendar, (fn. 112) which besides furnishing the Christian names of several of his family, show us that his clique endeavoured to carry out in their lives the religious principles which they professed. It is with Wharton's letters that we are chiefly concerned. These detail the early movements of that portion of the Parliament's forces which was formed of the volunteers of the metropolis, and their further progress when amalgamated with the main body of the Earl of Essex's army. In his "Short View of the late Troubles in England," Dugdale gives an account of the origin of this force, (fn. 113) in which Nehemiah Wharton began his soldier's career. He notices the alacrity with which the Londoners entered upon the contest. "People of all sorts were to be seen pouring out their treasure as if it were for the most advantageous purchase in the world, not sparing their very thimbles and bodkins, neither were they backward in the adventure of their lives."

A letter of Sir John Danvers, dated at Chelsea on the 15th of July 1642, (fn. 114) will be read with peculiar interest, as it gives information of the first blood spilt in the great Civil War.

In the first battle of the Civil War both sides claimed the victory. This battle, which was fought under Edge Hill, in the parish of Kineton or Kington, in Warwickshire, on the 23rd October 1642, has but occasional references in this volume, and then under the name of Kineton. (fn. 115) More than one recorded fight had taken place there before that memorable Sunday when Prince Rupert descended the hill toward Kineton. Nearly two centuries earlier, in 1469, Conyers and Robin of Riversdale had led sixty thousand Northerners in arms towards London, and encamped on Edgecot hill, which rises five miles north by east of Banbury, above the house where Charles I. slept on the night before the fight near Kineton. These Northerners were encountered there by the Earl of Pembroke, marching from Banbury, and a furious struggle took place on Danesmoor or Dunsmoor, the plain below, in which the Yorkists were defeated.

On this central highland of England which had attracted and delayed the fighters of different ages, the first and last battles of the Civil War, Edgehill and Naseby, were fought, on or close below it. From Danes or Borough Hill camp above Daventry the whole line of country is visible, and within the camp itself, supposed to be the Roman Ben-avenna, the Royal army was gathered "in a quiet posture" says Clarendon, for several days before they marched northward to the fatal field of Naseby, where a pillar now commemorates the victory gained by Cromwell on the 14th June 1645. The propinquity of these two important sites of the war is worth noticing. Had the battle at Edge Hill been more decisive the consequences would in all probability have been different. As it fortuned, though Charles did not remain master of the field, yet all the military consequences were evidently in his favour. (fn. 116)

A relation of Edgehill fight will be found in Carte's letters, i., 9, and another Royalist account in Spalding ii., 200: but the account of the battle as published by order of the Parliament is printed in Rushworth, v., 35. Had Charles succeeded in surprising London, it is asserted (fn. 117) he might have carried all before him, and put an end to the war in one campaign. Whether this would have been the case, we can only surmise, but certain it is that there was a prodigious alarm in London and much despondency amongst the Parliamentarians. (fn. 118)

So great was the fear that the City would give way under their accumulated disasters, that when the King's answer to the City petition was being discussed [January 19th] several Parliament men intruded themselves into the meeting of the Common Council "and made bitter invectives against its terms." (fn. 119) To this unusual interference of the Parliament in the government of the City, Alderman Garwaie urgently protested, and called attention "to the aggression of Parliament on their money and property. He urged them not to contribute to supply the Parliamentary army, but to comply with the King's demand for the apprehension of the Lord Mayor and three others. Then follows an account of the tumult raised in the Council, which broke up amid cries of 'No money. no money; peace, peace'!" (fn. 120)

But there was no peace to be yet. At present each side beguiled itself with the hopes of a speedy victory. (fn. 121) To an indifferent observer there appeared little hope of an accommodation. (fn. 122)

In the ensuing campaign of 1643 the advantage was for several months with the Royalists, whose military prospects are set out not too favourably by the Earl of Denbigh (fn. 123) in a letter of the 26th March 1643, to the Committee of Safety. It was natural that such should have been the case considering that most of the officers and gentlemen who had seen anything of military service were on the side of the Crown; but events were not long in disclosing that these advantages were not to be too recklessly counted upon, as evidenced by the letter of Capt. Goodrich (fn. 124) in May 1643.

Six weeks after the date of this letter, on the 29th June, the Parliament's forces under Lord Fairfax were defeated at Atherton Moor by the Earl of Newcastle, and a month later the Royalists gained two victories over Waller at Lansdown, near Bath, and Roundway Down, near Devizes, following on which Rupert took Bristol by storm, the last and most serious loss that the Parliament sustained. Against these must be set the raising of the siege of Gloucester by Essex on the 5th of September, the most distinguished exploit of his military life; and the first battle of Newbury fought on the 20th of the same month, in which the King lost several of his most devoted followers, including Lords Falkland, Sunderland, and Carnarvon. Notwithstanding these two compensatory victories, the second campaign closed in favour of the Royalists, but only by such a slight advantage that the war turned again into endless sieges and skirmishes of partisans. With this dismal outlook before them the two great political parties became hopelessly divided, and the death of John Pym, (fn. 125) the leader of the Parliamentarians, in December 1643 still further complicated matters, and prepared the way for the convocation of the rival Parliament at Oxford, 22nd January 1644. At page 504 of this volume will be found a note of the order of procession at the funeral of Pym, who was buried in Westminster Abbey by order of the Commons' House, (fn. 126) which directed that the Speaker and the whole House do accompany the interment.

WM. DOUGLAS HAMILTON.