them. To Strafford the appearance of these lengthy articles conveyed a sense of relief. "I thank God, my lord," he wrote to Ormond, "I see nothing capital in their charge, nor any other thing which I am not able to answer as becomes an honest man." relating to the Irish army. Elaborate as the articles were, there was one thought which overtopped them all. The belief that Strafford had planned Charge the introduction of an Irish army to overpower resistance in England was dragging him down to his destruction. Every piece of evidence which gave the slightest authority to this belief was eagerly caught at. The day after the articles were read in the House, a memJan. 29. Preparations ber stated that the Catholic Earl of Worcester and by the Earl of Worcester his son Lord Herbert had in the preceding year 2 questioned. received commissions authorising them to levy forces in those shires on either side of the Welsh border in which the influence of their house was predominant; and that Sir Percy Herbert, the Catholic son of Lord Powis, had been gathering corn, and had removed powder and munitions from the county magazine. It was easy to connect these levies with a supposed intention of landing Strafford's army in Wales. against voted. On the following day the articles against Strafford were put to the vote in the House. As soon as the first was read Sir John Strangways asked by what witnesses it had Jan. 30. Articles been substantiated, and Sir Guy Palmes seconded Strafford his demand for a reply. They were told that the House must be content to leave such matters to the committee. When the question was put, more than a third of the members present remained silent. The Speaker told them that everyone was bound to say either Aye or No; 'after which,' writes D'Ewes, 'the Ayes were many and loud.' The remaining articles were then voted and transmitted to the Lords.3 Slight as the indication of feeling was, it gave evidence 'D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. fol. 176. Strafford to Ormond, Feb. 3, Carte's Ormond, v. 245. 2 D'Ewes says it was in 1638, but this is plainly a mistake. • D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. fol. 182. 1641 proposes to THE QUEEN'S PROPOSED JOURNEY. 271 that the unanimity with which the Commons had hitherto proceeded, might not last for ever. Even if Charles The Queen had been capable of profiting by this position of visit France. affairs he would have been sadly hampered by the Catholic surroundings of the Queen. Henrietta Maria was violently annoyed by the late action of Parliament in demanding Goodman's execution and the expulsion of Rossetti, and by the summons issued to her secretary and her favourite companions to give an account of themselves before the House of Commons. She suddenly discovered that the English climate was injurious to her health, and that she was in danger of falling into a consumption. It would therefore be necessary for her to visit France in April. Preparations for her journey were ostentatiously made. object. Doubtless it was not mere vexation which brought the Queen to this resolve. Before April came she might expect an Her probable answer to her application to Rome, and she probably hoped that the result would be the direct intervention of the French Government on her behalf. She may very well have judged it more prudent to be absent from England when that intervention took shape. If such were her thoughts, she little knew Richelieu. The Cardinal, by whom France was ruled, cared nothing for the family relationships of his master, nothing even for the interests of his Church when they clashed with those of his country. Instead of despatching a new ambassador to threaten violence on behalf of the Catholics, he instructed Montreuil to enter into communications with the popular party, and to explain that it would be agreeable to France if Rossetti were allowed to remain. Holland, who was in opposition to the Court, simply because he had not latterly partaken sufficiently of its favours, answered that he would do all that lay in his power to forward the Cardinal's wishes. It was not to be expected that Richelieu would entangle himself for Rossetti's sake in English political strife.1 Montreuil's despatches, Feb. 7' Feb., Bibl. Nat. Fr. 15,995, fol. 183, 187. Rossetti to Barberini, Jan. 29, R. O. Transcripts. Giustinian Feb. 8' In the terror which was engendered by mutual distrust, Charles and the Commons were alike looking about them for support. The Commons had the advantage in their firmer grasp on the actual conditions under which the struggle was to be conducted. On February 3 they voted that 300,000l. should be given to the Scots under the name of a Brotherly Assistance. With this the Scottish Commissioners were completely satisfied, and all chance of breach between the two kingdoms came to an end.1 Feb. 3 Brotherly Assistance voted to the Scots. Charles the Catho lics. Charles took the hint. As he had often done before, he threw over the Catholics. He announced that Goodman should be left to the judgment of the Houses, though throws over he hoped that they would remember that severity towards Catholics in England would probably lead to severity towards Protestants in the Catholic States on the ConA proclamation should be issued ordering all priests to leave England within a month, on pain of being proceeded against according to law. As to Rossetti, he was in England to maintain the personal correspondence between the Queen and the Pope, which was warranted by her marriage treaty, as being necessary to the full liberty of her conscience. Nevertheless, she was prepared to dismiss him within a convenient time." The Commons took no further interest in Goodman's fate. He was allowed to remain unmolested in prison. It was not Goodman left in prison. merely the death of one particular priest that had been the object of so much clamour. The resentment of Parliament had been roused by the notorious connection of the Queen's Court with intrigues which were the more terrible to the imagination because they were shrouded in mystery. The day after the King's message had been delivered, the Queen sent a communication to the The Queen's Commons. Her project of visiting France had not message. been received with favour even by her own counsellors. The Protestant Henry Jermyn and the Catholic Walter Feb. 4. The Scottish Commissioners in London to the Committee at Newcastle, Feb. 6, Adv. Libr. Edin. 33, 4, 6. 3 L. 7. iv. 151. D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiv. fol. 112. 1641 AN OVERTURE FROM THE QUEEN. 273 Montague agreed in preferring an easy life at Somerset House to the uncertainties of exile. Jermyn's father, Sir Thomas, was therefore commissioned to inform the House of the Queen's earnest desire to establish a good understanding between her husband and his subjects, and to plead her ignorance of the law in palliation of any illegality which she might inadvertently have committed.1 In making this overture, Henrietta Maria was probably actuated by hopes which she had recently begun to entertain. At the same time that she had been proposing to appeal to foreign powers, she had been holding secret interviews with Bedford and Pym, and had agreed to recommend the one as Lord Treasurer, the other as Chancellor of the Exchequer. She probably fancied that everything was to be gained if the Parliamentary leaders could be won, and her message was evidently intended to smooth away all remaining difficulties. The Com Answer of the Commons. mons, however, were not much inclined to consider this message as more serious than it really was. When Jermyn finished there was a long silence. Some members then urged that they should proceed to the business of the day without taking any notice of it. A proposal made by Lord Digby to ask Jermyn to return thanks to the Queen was coldly received, though, in order to save appearances, it was at last adopted. Another proposal that a committee should be appointed to draw up formal thanks to her received no support.2 The possibility of an understanding between the King and the Commons seemed to be farther off than ever. Nor could Charles find comfort in the action of the Lords. On the 5th the Triennial Bill was read a The Trien third time by the peers. Both Houses, of one mind in attacking the influence of the Catholics at Court, were also of one mind in their determination that from henceforth the King should carry on the government in compliance with the wishes of Parliament. Feb. 5. mal Bill in the Lords. Sir J. Coke the younger to Sir J. Coke, Feb. 2, Melbourne MSS. Compare Mém. de Madame de Motteville, ch. ix. 2 Rushworth, iv. 129 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. fol. 176. D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. fol. 197. question. If it had been possible for Charles to throw himself frankly upon his subjects, he would probably soon have found himself The Church once more a force in England. The Church question was pressing for a solution, and the unanimity which had characterised the nation in its outburst of anger against the Laudian coercion was not likely to be maintained now that Laud's authority was at an end. The lawyers and the country gentlemen were indeed firmly resolved that if the bishops were to continue to exist, they must be brought under subjection to parliamentary law and their authority seriously curtailed. But when this was once settled, another question equally urgent was certain to arise. A large number of theorists, gaining strength from the hatred which the bishops had drawn upon themselves, argued that Episcopacy was antiChristian. A smaller number of theorists argued that Episcopacy was of Divine institution. To the mass of men it was a mere matter of convenience. To the bulk of religious men, or of men who, without being supereminently religious, were under the influence of religion, it mattered much more how the worship of the Church was conducted than how the clergy were governed. Laud had roused all the old dislike of the forms of the Church into new life. There was eager and bitter criticismı of the Prayer-book abroad, and there was a large portion of the population of the towns which would have cast out the Prayerbook altogether. Such could never have been the aim of the people as a whole. The new changes imposed by Laud, the removal of the communion-table to the east end, the enforcement of bowing when the name of Jesus was pronounced, the compulsory abstinence from work on Saints' days, must of necessity be abandoned. But the majority-in all probability the large majority-of Englishmen wanted no more than this. There were thousands to whom the old familiar words of the Prayer-book were very dear, and to whom its lofty piety and restrained emotion had long served as the sustenance of their spiritual lives. It was to this feeling that Bishop Hall now appealed. His Humble Remonstrance for Liturgy and Humble Re- Episcopacy appeared in the last week in January. Its very title was in itself significant. The question what was to be the Liturgy of the Church had taken a precedence Hall's monstrance. |