Bristol as its leader, it had declared equally against the extreme party which would have dragged an unwilling nation into staking its honour and safety upon the chances of a war to be waged by a beaten and undisciplined army, and against an equally extreme party which had looked with favour upon a hostile invasion. More than this, it had saved Charles from himself --from that hopeless vacillation which delivered him over as a prey to rash violence on one day, and to unreal submission on the next.

What chance was there that the influence of Bristol would be maintained in the coming Parliament? It was not likely that a House of Commons elected in such a time of sus

Dangers of picion and excitement, would be content with any the future. measures which would be easily accepted by the King. It was not likely that the King, accustomed as he was to the exercise of arbitrary power, would accept meekly the restrictions which even moderate men sought to place upon him. Times were coming when such men as Bristol might well despair of the ship of state. He was not likely to secure the mastery over the coming Parliament. Nor was it at all likely that he would secure the mastery over the King. The feelings with which Charles looked which he had forward to meeting the assembly which he had been compelled to call into existence, are doubtless admirably expressed in the opening pages of that little book which, if it be indeed a forgery, was the work of one possessed of no ordinary skill in the delineation of human character.1

Charles's feeling towards the Parliament

summoned.

"I cared not," so runs the passage, "to lessen myself in some things of my wonted prerogative, since I knew I could be

1 To the historian it is a matter of complete indifference whether the Eikon was written by Charles or by Gauden. The argument of Mr. Doble in the Academy, based on a comparison of styles, is the strongest which has yet been put forth in favour of Gauden's claim. What I am concerned to affirm is that Charles's real character and views are portrayed in the book. It is possible, however, that those views had become the common property of the Royalists during the course of the Civil War, and may thus have found their way into a work which, if it had appeared before 1642, could not have been written by anyone but Charles himself.

1640

THE COMING PARLIAMENT.

217

no loser if I might gain but a recompense in my subjects' affections. I intended not only to oblige my friends, but mine enemies also, exceeding even the desires of those that were factiously discontented, if they did but pretend to any modest and sober sense. The odium and offences which some men's rigour in Church and State had contracted upon my govern. ment, I resolved to have expiated by such laws and regulations for the future as might not only rectify what was amiss in practice, but supply what was defective in the constitution. resolved to reform what I should, by free and full advice in Parliament, be convinced of to be amiss, and to grant whatever my reason and conscience told me was fit to be desired." 1

I

Between Charles's conception of his place in the English nation and the sad reality, there was, indeed, a great gulf.

1 Eikon Basilike, ch. i.

218

CHAPTER XCV.

THE FIRST TWO MONTHS OF THE LONG PARLIAMENT.

1640. Nov. 3. Meeting of the Long Parliament.

ON November 3 that famous assembly which was to be known to all time as the Long Parliament met at Westminster. It was impossible that the view of public affairs which was taken by the King should satisfy the men who now came together from every part of England. They were firmly persuaded, not that a few things had gone wrong, but that everything had gone wrong. The future Cavalier and the future Roundhead were of one mind in this. Nor would they be content to submit the choice of the abuses to be abolished to the reason and conscience of the King. They had resolved to measure by their own reason and conscience the remedies which they desired. Charles had by his actions thrust into the foreground the question of sovereignty, and it could never be put out of sight again.

Temper of the members.

Causes of future mischief.

Unhappily it was rather to be wished than to be expected that the claim to supremacy which Parliament was justified in putting forward, should have been swollen by no unreasonable demands, and supported on no fictitious allegations. The worst result of Charles's system of government was, that this could not be. He had attempted to rule without understanding his subjects, and the process had not been such as to enable them to understand him. Called upon to interpret a series of actions to which they did not possess the key, they naturally conceived that the explanation was to be found in a more resolute and consistent effort than any

1640

PARLIAMENT AND THE SCOTS.

219

of which Charles was really capable. They held that all that had taken place was the result of a settled conspiracy to replace law and liberty by an absolute despotism at home, whilst the political despotism thus brought into existence was to be subjected in turn to the ecclesiastical despotism of the Pope This, they believed, was the deliberate intention of Laud and Strafford, for as yet Charles's name was not mentioned. It was natural enough that it should be so, but it was none the less fatal to any chance, if chance there were, of an understanding with the King. Errors do not any the less produce their evil crop because they are under the circumstances unavoidable.

Strength of the Parliament in the Scottish .army.

No Parliament had ever met, since the days of Earl Simon, with so great a strength of popular support. Nor had it only to rely upon a vague and unorganised feeling, always hard to translate into combined action. For the first time since Parliaments had been, it had behind it an armed and disciplined force, possessing more military cohesion than any popular rising could possibly have had. That army, indeed, was, in the eye of the law, an army of foreigners encamped on English soil. But for the moment it was regarded by most Englishmen with more sympathy than that other army in the North which was entirely composed of Englishmen. By a strange combination of circumstances, it had become impossible for Charles to defy his Parliament without defying the Scottish army as well. Unless he could pay the 850l. a day, which the Scots had agreed to accept, their army would hold the Treaty of Ripon to be at an end, would cross the Tees, and march southwards. There was no force in existence which could be counted on to stop the invaders anywhere between Yorkshire and Whitehall. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary for Charles to find money, and he knew perfectly well that if he dissolved Parliament it would be out of his power to collect a single penny.

It was not now with Charles, as it had been in 1625, in 1626, in 1629, or even in the spring of 1640. His former quarrels with Parliament had brought to him disordered finances, and had frustrated his cherished plans. A dissolution now would bring him face to face with absolute ruin.

Charles speaks of

Plain as this seems to be, it took some little time to drive it home to Charles's understanding. In his opening speech he asked the Houses to join him in chasing out the rebels, and was surprised to find himself obliged to explain away the obnoxious term.]

the Scots as rebels.

The new position of Parliament was emphasized by the choice of a Speaker. Charles had intended to propose the nomination of the Recorder of London, Sir Thomas Gardiner, a devoted adherent of the Crown. Con

Nov. 5. Lenthall

Speaker. trary to all precedent, the City had refused to send its Recorder to Parliament, and was represented by four stout Puritans. Charles was therefore obliged to look elsewhere. His choice had fallen on William Lenthall, a barrister of some repute in the courts, and likely to be acceptable to the leading members of the Commons. Lenthall was better fitted for the post than Charles could have imagined. He was surpassed by some in the House in knowledge of Parliamentary precedent, but he was the first to realise the position of a Speaker in times of political controversy. He would not, like Finch, in 1629, place himself at the service of the Crown. Neither would he, like Glanville, in the Short Parliament, take an active part in opposition to the Crown. He was content to moderate and control, and to suggest the means of reconciling differences, without attempting to influence the House in its decision. Through his whole career he had, as he said on one famous occasion, neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, save as the House was pleased to direct him.

Strafford's

No one knew better than Strafford what danger was impending over his own head. He had to bear the burden of all other men's offences as well as of his own. To the mass forebodings. of Englishmen he was the dark-browed apostate, who had forsaken the paths of constitutional usage to establish a despotic and arbitrary power. The Scots, too, loudly proclaimed him as the enemy of their Church and country, and as the originator of that war which had been as obnoxious to Englishmen as it had been to themselves. Court favourites,

'The King's Speeches, Rushworth, iv. 11, 17.