discipline. June 17. Murder of Lieutenant assaulting honest countrymen who refused to satisfy the demands Want of of the soldiery. Another body of men in the same county were filled with the universal fear of Popish intrigue. They asked their captain whether he would receive the Communion with them. On his refusal, they told him 'that if he would not pray with them, they would not fight with him,'' and declined to follow him farther. In Suffolk the deputylieutenants announced that the mutinous soldiers had threatened 'to murder them.' In the City of London, in Kent, Surrey, Essex, Herts, Buckinghamshire, and Bedfordshire, resistance to the levy was almost universal. On the 16th Northumberland complained that desertions were so numerous that scarcely half the numbers raised would appear at Mohun. Selby. Before long the Government and the country were startled by the news that an officer had been actually murdered by the Dorsetshire men at Faringdon. Lieutenant Mohun had given an order to the drummer. The boy refused to obey, and insolently raised his drumstick to strike him. Mohun drew his sword, and slashed at the drummer's wrist, almost slicing away his hand. The news quickly spread. Mohun was chased to his lodgings by the angry soldiers. His brains were dashed out with their clubs, and his body, after it had been dragged through the mire, was suspended to the pillory. The authors of the outrage dispersed in every direction. Many of them were subsequently captured and committed for trial, but the organisation of the force was hopelessly broken up.3 Other regiments were in nearly as bad a condition. LunsJune 22. ford complained that the Somersetshire men in his Desertion in charge refused to obey his orders. "Divers of these," shire. he wrote from Warwick, "in troops returned home, all in a forwardness to disband, and the counties rather inclined Warwick 1 J. Nicholas to Nicholas, June 1. Rossingham's News-Letter, June 8, S. P. Dom. cccclvi. 44. * Deputy-Lieutenants of Suffolk to the Council, June 8, fol. 2. Northumberland to Conway, June 13, 16, ibid. cccclvi. 45, 77; cccclvii. 5, 34. The Sheriff of Berks to the Council, June 20. Rossingham's NewsLetter, June 23, S. P. Dom. cccclvii. 104. 1640 THE JUDGES LUKEWARM. 161 to foment their dislikes than to assist in punishment or persuasions. Hues and cries work no effect. We want orders to raise the power of the countries,' are daily assaulted by sometimes five hundred of them together, have hurt and killed some in our own defences, and are driven to keep together upon our guard."2 June 20. Case of Chambers. Whilst the soldiers were thus breaking out into open mutiny, the Court of King's Bench, the great prop of Charles's government, was showing signs of uneasiness. When the counsel for Chambers, in his ship-money case, had been heard, Heath applied, on behalf of the defendant, to postpone his argument till after the Long Vacation, and the concession, though made by the court, was only made with considerable hesitation. On another case of still greater importance, the judges were more peremptory. Case of Pargiter. A Northamptonshire gentleman, named Pargiter, had been committed for refusing the payment of coat-and-conduct The legality money. He applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and of coat-and the court, in accordance with the Petition of Right, required that the cause of his committal should be questioned. signified. The counsel for the Crown asked for delay, and, though his request was not absolutely refused, he was told that cause must be shown before the end of the month.3 conduct money The diffi This occurrence placed the Government in no slight diffi. culty. It seemed as if another monster trial, similar to that of Hampden, was inevitable. The lawyers of the culty of the Opposition would argue, with the sympathy of the Government. nation again on their side, that coat-and-conduct money was an illegal exaction. The existing system was of such recent introduction that this time the judges might possibly not be in favour of the Crown. It was certain that, whether the judges decided in favour of the Crown or not, very little money would be paid whilst their decision was pending. The 1 i.e. counties. 2 Lunsford to Northumberland, June 22, S. P. Dom. cccclvii. 91. 3 Council Register, May 22. Rossingham's News-Letters, June 16, 23, S. P. Dom. cccclvii. 36, 104. prospect of meeting the Scots in the field with a sufficient army, bad as it was already, would be altogether at an end. June 24. Proposed issue of of Array. From this difficulty Charles was saved by his legal advisers. In the reign of Henry IV., it had been decided in Parliament that, when an invasion was impending, the King might issue Commissions of Array. All who were Commissions capable of bearing arms in each county would be bound to march in person to the defence of the realm. Those who were incapacitated by age or infirmity would be bound to contribute both to the equipment of the force thus raised, and to its support till it passed the borders of the county in which it had been levied. After that it would be taken into the King's pay. The Attorney-General was therefore ordered to prepare such Commissions of Array. Not only had Charles found a legal basis for the exaction which had been questioned, but he would be freed from the obligation of repaying the sums which had been expended in the counties.1 Strafford's There can be little doubt that this resolution was applauded by Strafford, who was now sufficiently recovered to take part in public affairs, though he did not sit in Council till recovery. some days later. Yet, though he was glad to find that the law would cover strong measures, he was still of opinion that the crisis demanded strong measures whether the law would cover them or not. Conway, at Newcastle, was much vexed by Northumberland's anxiety to keep within the law. The Lord General has been especially alarmed by the intelligence that Conway had executed a mutineer by martial law. Question of He consulted the lawyers, and the lawyers told him that both he and Conway must receive a pardon from the Crown if they wished to escape punishment.3 Conway complained to Strafford, as certain of his sympathy. Council Register, June 24. Rolls of Parliament, iii. 526. Stubbs, Const. Hist. iii. 262; 279, note I. martial law. June 28. 2 On July 5. Joachimi to the States-General, July 13. Add. MSS. 17,677, 2. fol. 216. 23' They held that martial law could still be exercised where an army is in a body drawn together and near an enemy,' which was not the case here. 1640 NORTHUMBERLAND'S DOUBTS. 163 How, he asked, could discipline be maintained on such conditions? A soldier was then in prison charged with a brutal murder. "If he be not executed by martial law, but that we turn him over to the law, it will utterly lose all respect and power. If martial law may be executed, let me know it; if it be not, and that the King cannot find a remedy for it, it will not be possible to keep the troops together." Newcastle fed. Charles, as Strafford would have said, was lost by halting between Saul and David. He had neither the advantage of popular support nor of self-reliant dictatorship. In left unforti- vain Conway pointed out the absolute necessity of fortifying Newcastle, and begged to be allowed to lay an imposition on the townsmen for the purpose. Northumberland hesitated in face of the obvious illegality of the proposal. It was, he said, a good work, but he doubted 'whether these distempered times' were 'proper for such a business.' "When all levies that have formerly been paid," he Northum wrote to Conway, "are now generally refused, what prognostica. hope is there of raising money by any such way till there come a fitter season? I will keep your proI see occasion." The To Northumberland, June 30. berland's tions. position by me, and make use of it as occasion never came till it was too late. all the efforts made by his more warlike colleagues were hopeless from the first. "To your lordship," he went on to say, "I must confess that our wants and disorders are so great that I cannot devise how we should go on with our designs for this year. Most of the ways that we relied on for supplies of money have hitherto failed us, and for aught I know we are likely to become the most despised nation of Europe. To the regiments that are now rising we have, for want of money, been able to advance but fourteen days' pay, the rest must meet them on their march towards Selby, and for both horse and foot already in the North we can for the present send them but seven days' pay. We are gallant men, for this doth not at all discourage We yet make full account of conquering Scotland before months pass. us. many " 2 1 Conway to Strafford, June 28, S. P. Dom. ccccli. 58. Amongst these gallant men who were not to be discouraged was Windebank. To him all the disorder amongst the troops was but the work of a few evil-disposed persons in the higher ranks of society. "Some restiveness appears in some July 6. Windebank's counties," he wrote, "in raising the forces, and sundry satisfaction. insolences are committed by the forces when they are levied, most of which have been redressed upon repair of the Lords Lieutenants in person to the counties, so that the people are not in themselves refractory, but when the Lords Lieutenants are well-affected and diligent the service succeeds without difficulty." July 9. Astley's The Secretary's optimism was not shared by Sir Jacob Astley, the veteran to whom was entrusted the task of receiving the recruits as they arrived at Selby. On July 9, he reported that 4,000 had then arrived, 'the arch report. knaves of the country.' He had only money enough to pay them for a week. Large numbers of them straggled over the country, beating their officers and the peasants. On the 11th, 2,000 more came in. UnJuly 11. less he had more money soon, he declared, the whole force would break up. The men came ill-clothed from their homes. Many had neither shoes nor stockings. The captains were constantly going to York to ask for money to pay their men, when they ought to have been drilling them, if they were ever to convert them into soldiers. 1 Windebank to Conway, July 6; Astley to Conway, July 9, 11, S. P. Dom. cccclix. 41, 64, 84 |