1641 Two more subsidies Pym's strange proposal. SUBSIDIES VOTED. 295 that two more subsidies should be granted to tempt the citizens to lend by increasing the security offered. The proposal had the support of those who had lately followed Falkland and Digby in the Church debates. What they proposed. wanted was to pay off the Scots, and to be rid of them for ever. "If we cannot provide for monies," said Kirton, a member who was in the habit of speaking strongly for the bishops, "we should provide for our safeties. I should be willing to give more if we knew the end of our charge." On the other hand, many of the stricter Puritans opposed the subsidy, perhaps wishing to bring on a confusion in which they would gain their ends. Pym broke away from his usual supporters. He knew that their course was dictated more by temper than by judgment. For once, however, that cool and skilful tactician appears to have lost his head. He proposed, 'that, in respect of the great necessity of the public, they might compel the Londoners to Opposition lend.' The formal and precise D'Ewes reminded of D'Ewes. the House that the arbitrary rule of a Parliament was very much the same as the arbitrary rule of a king. He was surprised, he said, to hear from 'that worthy member' a proposal which conduced to the violation of the liberties and properties of the subject.' He hoped that it would not be whispered abroad that such words had been heard within their walls. "For certainly," he said, "if the least fear of this should grow, that men should be compelled to lend, all men will conceal their ready money, and lend nothing to us voluntarily." The two subsidies Pym found supporters and opponents as each man's temper led him. Holles and Culpepper declared against him. One young member moved that he should be called on to give satisfaction to the House. Capel, perhaps from his strong animosity to the Scots, gave his support to voted. the proposal. If his own son, he said, refused to lend money on this occasion, he would be ready to put him to the torture. In the end the two subsidies were voted, and a check was thus given to the over-hasty zeal of those who were ready to welcome disorders in the North rather than to wait for the slow progress of the great impeachment.' If the King had consented to the dissolution of the Irish army, the debate might have ended in a more decided demonstration against the Scots. Feb. 24. answer read. On the 24th Strafford appeared at the bar of the Lords to present his answer to the articles against him. To the surprise of many, Charles took his seat on the throne to hear This was generally believed to be a demonstration in favour of the prisoner. It was noticed that he gave signs of satisfaction whenever a point was made in the defence. His conduct was not likely to affect the peers favourably. They did their best to preserve their character as judges. As soon as the King had left the House, they resolved that all that had been done in his presence was null and void, and ordered the articles of the Commons and the prisoner's reply to be read over again.3 On the same day articles of impeachment were voted in the Commons against Laud. He, too, it was alleged, had been guilty of treason in attempting to alter religion and ment of the fundamental laws of the realm. The vote was unanimous. Men who wished to support a reformed Episcopacy had no sympathy with Laud. Impeach Laud. The antagonism on ecclesiastical questions was as strong as ever. Just at this time an action of the Scottish Commissioners came to increase the general confusion. The Scottish Voices had Commission been raised amongst the Root-and-Branch party ers declare accusing them of being ready to desert their English against Episcopacy friends, and to go home as soon as the money due in England. to them was paid. As an answer to this attack, the Commissioners directed Henderson to draw up a declaration of their wish to see Episcopacy abolished in England as well Salvetti speaks of the vote as a check to the Puritans, and this seems to be borne out by the record of the debate in D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. fol. 243. The names of the tellers, too, point in the same direction. 2 Giustinian to the Doge, March 8' L. J. iv. 171. 1641 THE SCOTS UNPOPULAR. 297 as at home. The declaration was printed for circulation among the members of Parliament, and a copy was allowed to fall into the hands of a stationer, who at once printed further copies for sale. Charles was indignant at this interference, and for once his indignation found an echo in the House of Commons. The Scots were assured by their friends that a majority would Feb. 26. be against them. The bishops' party was so confiExcitement dent of success, that they demanded that Henderson's paper should be read with a view to its condemnation. The demand was, however, rejected, after having raised, as D'Ewes noted, 'one of the greatest distempers in the House' that he had ever seen.2 in the Com mons. March 3. Growing dissatisfac tion with the Scots. The Scottish Commissioners felt themselves to be treading on delicate ground. "The estate of business here,” they wrote to Leslie, "is very uncertain. The paper which we gave in hath much offended many in the Parliament, even some that are not friends to Episcopacy; for though the paper be nothing so hard as the charge against Canterbury, yet the times are changed. Then they thought the progress and success of their affairs had some dependence upon our army, but now they have gotten their triennial Parliaments established, and some of them have fallen in to have hand with the King; and though they be enemies to Episcopacy and friends to reformation, yet they think it will be to their discredit that reformation should be wrought here, as it were, by our sword.” 3 If Charles could count on some support on this question of Episcopacy, it was evident that he could not count on support on any other. The Lords had already joined the Commons in asking for the dispersion of the Irish army, for the Laud sent to disarmament of the English Catholics, and for the dismissal of the Queen's Catholic attendants. On March 1 Laud was committed to the Tower. As he passed through the streets the mob rushed at the carriage to drag March 1. the Tower. Baillie, i. 305. 2 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiv. fol. 271. The Scottish Commissioners in London to Leslie, March 13, Adv. Libr. Edin. 33, 4, 6. March 2. him out, and it was with difficulty that he was saved from brutal outrage by the firmness of the guard. On Reparation the following day the Commons voted that reparation should be made to Bastwick for the wrong done to him by the Star Chamber, and a similar resolution was subsequently adopted in the cases of the other victims. to be made to Prynne, Burton, Bastwick, Leighton, and Lilburne. March 1. The Lords' con.mittee on ecclesiastical innovations. On the day of Laud's committal to the Tower, a step was taken in the direction of an ecclesiastical settlement. Whatever else might be done, it was evident that Laud's action in the removal of the communion-tables to the east end of the churches could not possibly be sustained. The Lords now issued an order directing the bishops to see that the table should 'stand decently in the ancient place where it ought to do by the law, and as it hath done for the greater part of these three-score years last past.' The order was not free from ambiguity, but it was evidently intended to enforce the ideas of Bishop Williams. At Saye's motion a committee was named to take into consideration 'all innovations in the Church concerning religion,' and the temper of the new committee was shown by its selection of Williams as its chairman.2 The Lords had presented themselves as mediators in the great controversy of the time. Whether they would succeed or not depended on many things, and most of all upon the hearty co-operation of the King. It could. not fail to be noticed that Charles gave neither word nor sign of approbation. Their posi tion as mediators. 5 L. 7. iv. 172. Salvetti's News-Letter, March One of the Scot15' tish Commissioners to , Feb. 23, Wodrow MSS. xxv. No. 146. 2 One of the Scottish Commissioners, writing on March 9 (Wodrow MSS. xxv. No. 149), speaks of a debate on Saturday, which ought most probably to be Monday, March 1. He says that in it Saye spoke 'very freely against Episcopacy and the Liturgy, constantly averring that he would never hear it. Bristol answered that there were some indifferent things pressed on men's consciences which must be taken away; but what was established by law no man might separate from it. Saye replied that they were now in loco et tempore mutationis, and therefore desired that a committee might be appointed for that effect.' 1641 The Commons resolve should not temporal DEMANDS OF THE SCOTS. 299 The Commons, too, were taking their own way. Whilst the Lords were turning their attention to ecclesiastical cereMarch 10. monial, the Commons were attacking ecclesiastical institutions. On March 10, on the report of the that bishops committee to which the two petitions had been resit in Parlia- ferred, they resolved that the legislative and judicial ment, power of the bishops in the Upper House was a great hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual functions, and was March 11. also prejudicial to the commonwealth. The next day or exercise they resolved that no judicial functions of any kind should be exercised by the clergy. Episcopacy itself was not challenged. The Root-and-Branch party knew well that they could not, for the present at least, count on a majority. Pym and his political associates would be no parties to raising a question on which they had not themselves made up their minds, and which would be certain to stir up unnecessary strife. Yet the Root-and-Branch party was in good heart. The House, they said, was now taking down the roof of ecclesiastical government, and would soon come to the walls. functions. the Rootand-Branch party. The Scots At this time a new difficulty had arisen with the Scots. In order to stop the King from issuing a proclamation to call in their paper on Episcopacy, they had drawn up ask for unity a mollifying explanation' of their meaning. The of religion. English Commissioners threatened to print this, in order to bring them into disrepute with their English friends; and Henderson was therefore set to work to draw up a longer memorial, setting forth the desire of the Scots for unity of religion between the kingdoms. On March 10 this was presented to the English Commissioners with a request that it might be laid before Parliament. The Scots were told that if this was done so the King would give his reasons in reply. Essex added that by the course they were taking they might breed distractions among the two Houses.' In the face of these objections the Scots unwillingly 1 C. 7. ii. 101, 102. D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. 304, 307, clxiv. 134 b. March 10. March 16. 2 Argument Persuading Conformity of Church Government (E. 157, 2). |