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 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.

The Triennial 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.

The Church question.

If it had been possible for Charles to throw himself frankly upon his subjects, he would probably soon have found himself 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 criticism 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.

1641

HYDE AND FALKLAND.

275

over the question of Episcopacy which he had not conceded to it in the preceding year. No doubt he argued warmly now, as then, on behalf of the Divine authority of bishops. But his main contention was in favour of the excellence of the Book of Common Prayer, and of its adaptability to every mood of Christian devotion. He admitted that some things might call for a reformation; but, when existing grievances had been redressed, the ancient building might well be left with all its fair proportions unimpaired. No wonder Charles liked the book well. No wonder, too, that those who were bent on establishing Presbyterianism in England held that all others pitied it 'as a most poor piece.'1

Feb. 8.

Feeling

against Presby

terianism.

If Episcopacy in its actual form found few supporters in England, Presbyterianism was not without its enemies. Though many minds had received a strong Puritan impress from the ecclesiastical domination of the past years, there were others, scarcely less numerous, which were filled with a distrust of the government of ecclesiastics in any form whatever, and who thought that the yoke of a popular clergy was likely to be far harder than the yoke of an unpopular clergy had ever been. In the House of Commons this distrust of Presbyterianism was widely spread. It found expression especially in three men—in Hyde, in Falkland, and in Digby, the lawyer, the scholar, and the gentleman.

Hyde was taking no mean part in the work of cutting away the extraordinary powers which had been acquired by the Crown since the accession of the House of Tudor. Hyde. He was zealous with more than ordinary zeal to establish the supremacy of the law. But with him the supremacy of the law was almost equivalent to the supremacy of lawyers. He fully shared in the contempt which is always felt by the members of a learned profession for those who are outside its pale. He had no idea that sovereignty when once taken away from a king, must be transferred to a nation. He had no sympathy with Pym's trust in the supremacy of the House of Commons. Being himself without strong passions, he never took account of the existence of strong passion in

1 Baillie, i. 293.

others. The Church of his ideal was one in which there would be no enthusiasm and no fanaticism, no zeal of any kind to break up the smooth ease of existence. He loved the services of the Church, but he loved them rather because they were decorous than because they were expressive of spiritual emotion.

Far nobler, if also far weaker, was the character of his friend Falkland. Falkland saw, before Milton saw Falkland. it, that new presbyter would be but old priest writ large. He feared lest intellectual liberty would suffer from the new Church government as it had suffered from the old.

Digby.

Although in some respects Lord Digby, Bristol's son and heir, stood nearer to Falkland than to Hyde, his distrust of Presbyterianism was rather the feeling of the polished gentleman versed in the ways of society than that of the truth-seeking student. Possessed of every quality which lifts a man to success, except discretion, he looked down with the scorn of conscious power upon the sophisms which passed muster in a popular creed. His versatility and lack of principle made him easily the dupe of flattery, and the most brilliant of living Englishmen ended a long career without attaching his name to any single permanent result either for good or for evil. There can be little doubt that the Queen had already gained him over. At the opening of the Parliament he had cried out as loudly as anyone against the iniquities of the Government. In the late debate on the Queen's message it had been his voice which had asked that formal thanks might be returned to her for the friendly assurances which she had given.

On February 8 the most momentous debate of these months was opened in the Commons. Formally the question at issue The debates was whether the London petition, which asked for the abolition of Episcopacy, should be sent to a competitions. mittee as well as the ministers' petition which asked only that the bishops might be restrained by certain defined rules.

on the ecclesiastical

Rudyerd's

The debate was opened by Rudyerd. He arspeech. gued in favour of a scheme of limited Episcopacy, according to which the bishop, being excluded from political

1641

LORD

LORD DIGBY.

277

functions, would be bound in ecclesiastical matters of importance to take the advice of a certain number of the clergy of his diocese. Then Digby followed. No one, he said, was

Digby's speech.

1

more ready than he to join in clipping the prelates' wings, but he could not join in their extirpation. The secret of his displeasure was not long concealed. He poured out his contempt on the 15,000 citizens who had signed the London petition, as well as on the petition itself. He spoke of it as a comet with a terrible tail pointing towards the north. "Let me recall to your mind," he said, "the manner of its delivery, and I am confident there is no man of judgment that will think it fit for a Parliament under a monarchy to give countenance to irregular and tumultuous assemblies of people, be it for never so good an end." The petition itself, he declared, was filled with expressions of undeniable harshness, and its conclusion was altogether illogical. It argued that because Episcopacy had been abused, its use must be taken away. Parliament might make a law to regulate Church government, but it was mere presumption for those who were outside Parliament to petition against a law actually in force.

Having thus assailed the petitioners, Digby turned round upon the bishops. "Methinks," he said, "the vengeance of the prelates hath been so layed, as if it were meant no generation, no degree, no complexion of mankind could escape it. . . . Was there a man of nice and tender conscience? Him they afflicted with scandal, . . . imposing on him those things as necessary which they themselves knew to be but indifferent. Was there a man of a legal conscience that made the establishment by law the measure of his religion? Him they have nettled with innovations, with fresh introductions to Popery. . . . Was there a man that durst mutter against their insolencies? He may inquire for his 'lugs'; they have been within the bishops' visitation, as if they would not only derive their brandishment of the spiritual sword from St. Peter, but of the material one too, and the right to cut off ears. For my part I profess I am

1 Rushworth, iv. 183. There are short notes of the debate in D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. 206. The speeches are given by Rushworth in a wrong order and assigned to a wrong date.