March 2. Reparation to be made to Prynne, Burton, him out, and it was with difficulty that he was saved from brutal outrage by the firmness of the guard.1 On 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. Bastwick, Leighton, and Lilburne. March 1. The Lords' committee 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 position as mediators. 1 L. 7. iv. 172. Salvetti's News-Letter, March 5 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 March 10. The Commons resolve should not March 11. or exercise temporal functions. DEMANDS OF THE SCOTS. 299 The Commons, too, were taking their own way. Whilst the Lords were turning their attention to ecclesiastical ceremonial, 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 also prejudicial to the commonwealth. The next day they resolved that no judicial functions of any kind should be exercised by the clergy.1 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 Outlook of 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. the Rootand-Branch party. The Scots of religion. 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 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.2 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. F. 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). gave way, and their explanations were suppressed, whilst the King on his part took no further steps in condemnation of their original offence.1 Relations with Scot The relations between Scotland and England were bringing into prominence the unfitness of a large assembly without definite leadership to deal with complicated affairs. During the first three weeks of March the feeling of land. the Commons shifted from day to day. The Scots naturally demanded that their troops should be paid as long as the negotiation was still on foot. At one time the Commons seemed anxious to provide the money. At another time they had something else to think of. There was a sense of insecurity abroad which made it hard to find capitalists who were ready to lend. If the friends of Episcopacy were anxious to get money together that the Scots might be finally paid off and sent across the Tweed, the enemies of Episcopacy feared lest, if money were collected, they might lose the support of such good allies. The King had ceased to govern, and there was no one who had undertaken the work in his stead. There was no Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House to strike the balance of advantage or disadvantage in incurring any particular expenditure, and to press upon the House the absolute necessity of deciding once for all upon the mode in which its financial engagements were to be satisfied. To the Scots themselves the situation was becoming well-nigh intolerable. On the 20th the Commons had to listen to a sharp demand for payment from the Scottish Commissioners. By this time the House was in an increased state of irritation at the continued delays in the commencement of Strafford's trial. Henry Marten, a son of the Judge of the Court of Arches, who was morally separated from the Puritans by his gay and dissolute Henry Marten and life, but who was at one with them in his trenchant Strode bring the debate to opposition to the King, thought this a good opportunity to urge forward the Lords by the threat of bringing the Scottish army upon them by stopping supplies, in March 20. The Scots demand money. a close. 1 Baillie, i. 307. Borough's Notes, March 10, 16, Harl. MSS. cccclvii. 75, 78. The Scottish Commissioners to the Committee at Newcastle, Feb. 27, Adv. Libr. Edin. 33, 4, 6. 1641 MARTEN AND STRODE. 301 default of which it might be expected that the Scots would cross the Tweed and take with a strong hand that which they I could not obtain in any other way. He moved in committee that the House 'could not make any advancement of monies to any purpose until justice were done upon the Earl of Strafford.' His motion was supported by Sir Walter Erle. On this Strode suddenly proposed that the Speaker should resume the chair. The proposal was adopted, and the debate came to an end without remonstrance from any side.1 Nothing more was heard for some time about money for the Scots. This extraordinary resolution was an indication that a temper was rising in the House which regarded Strafford's punishment, not as a vindication of public justice, but as a necessary precaution against a public enemy. 1 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. fol. clxiv. 129 b; clxii. 282, 283, 290, 329, 338. 302 CHAPTER XCVII. THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE EARL OF STRAFFORD. No THE Commons needed not to have been so impatient. further delay was proposed by the peers. So great was the 1641. March 22. Arrange ments of the court. interest taken in the trial that it had been determined that the proceedings should take place in Westminster Hall, where alone room could be found for the crowds which were eager to listen to the great impeachment. For form's sake a throne had been erected with its back against the long west wall. In front of it was the seat of the Earl of Arundel, who had recently been appointed Lord Steward of the Household, and who, as Lord Keeper Lyttelton was disabled by sickness from attending, was now selected by the Lords as their Speaker.1 In front of Arundel were seats, to be occupied by the judges if they were summoned to give advice on points of law. There was also a table for the clerks, on either side of which were the places of the peers. Then came the bar, behind which was a desk at which the prisoner might sit or stand, whilst four secretaries were to be ready to supply him with any papers which he might need. Farther back still were the lawyers whom he might employ to argue on his behalf if any legal question should be raised, though, according to the barbarous custom of those days, their mouths must be closed on all matters of fact. On one side of Strafford's desk were seats for the managers who appeared for the Commons, whilst a witness-box on the other side completed the arrangements of the court. On either side arose tiers of seats, 1 L. f. iv. 190. |