CHAPTER XCIX.

ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS.

1641. May 10. Importance of the Bill for the con

IT is probable that, in the humiliation of Strafford's death, Charles thought little of the abandonment of authority contained in the Act for prohibiting the dissolution of the existing Parliament. Onlookers saw the full effect of that statute. "I may live to do you a kindness," said Dorset to the King, "but you can do me none.” "Will it be possible," asked Williams, 66 for your truest lieges to do you service more?"1

tinuance of Parliament.

The Act, in truth, was a revolutionary one without being revolutionary enough. Traditional reverence stood in the way of the dethronement of a sovereign who was not to be trusted. In fear lest he should use his acknowledged powers to give a legitimate sanction to a dissolution accomplished by military violence, Parliament wrested from him the right of consulting the nation at all. It is hard to see how Parliament could have done otherwise so long as Charles remained on the throne. The execution of Strafford had fixed a great gulf, never to be bridged over, between the King and the House of Commons. To the Commons Charles was the supporter of a traitor to the liberties of England. To Charles the Commons were the murderers of a faithful servant, and rebels against lawful authority, with whom no terms were to be kept. The position had all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of a state of war. The new Act had constituted two independent powers, each of which was armed with sufficient authority to

1 Sir J. Bramston's Autobiography, 83. Hacket, ii. 162.

reduce the other to impotence. Parliament had not ventured to claim that sovereignty for itself, before which all discordant elements must give way.

Parliament

May 13.

1

For the present Charles had to acknowledge, practically, that he had found his masters. He had to promaster of the mise to disband the Irish army. He found himself position. checked in the distribution of offices. On the 13th he appointed Heath to the Mastership of the Wards. He was obliged to cancel the appointment and to give the post to Saye. He had destined the Lieutenancy of Yorkshire to Savile, as a reward for the support which he had given to him during Strafford's trial. Parliament requested him to appoint Essex, and he was obliged to yield. The Treasury, May 20. vacated by Juxon, was put in commission. The secret committee was sitting daily to extract evidence of the Army Plot from the King's familiar attendants, and even from the ladies of the Queen's Bedchamber. It soon appeared that there need no longer be any fear from France, as the French troops, whose movements had scared the citizens of London, were heard of as landing in Picardy.2 Charles, however, knew full well how many other secrets existed which he would be loth to have dragged into the light of day.

lics sus

The Queen was even more deeply compromised than her husband. She had to look on in silent vexation whilst the May 14. Catholics were questioned for every rash word that The Catho had sprung to their lips. It was inevitable that the pected hopes which they had cherished of relief from the proscription to which Parliament had doomed them, should have found vent in wild expressions of anticipated triumph. It was inevitable, too, that Parliament, merciless towards those whom its oppression stung into anger, should believe the danger

1 Heath's appointment is on the Patent Rolls. Saye's was not enrolled. Mr. Selby, whose wide knowledge of the documents in the Record Office is always at the service of inquirers, discovered for me an entry on the Books of the Controller of the Hanaper, stating that Saye presented a 'carta' on the 24th. Whitelocke dates the appointment on the 17th. A news-letter gives the 16th.-Sloane MSS. mcccclxvii. fol. 37.

1641

MUTUAL DISTRUST.

375

greater than it really was, and should catch at chance phrases, some of them, perhaps, misreported or exaggerated, as evidence of a deliberate plot for the overthrow of the parliamentary constitution. One recusant's wife, it was reported, had predicted that the Parliament House would shortly be in flames. Another had been overheard to say, that there would be a black day before long, and that many would be fatherless. An incoherent letter, directed to a recusant lady-in all probability a silly forgery was picked up in the streets. It contained a request for money, and referred with satisfaction to the approaching slaughter of the beast with many heads.1 Men, comparatively young, could remember how, in the days of the Gunpowder Plot, their fathers had been saved from destruction by a letter just as incoherent. Orders were given to imprison all the priests in England, and there were many who were dissatisfied that no harsher measures were taken. A closer home-thrust at the Queen was a demand that her mother should leave the country.

May 18. Charles proposes to visit Scotland.

If ever lesson had been plain to read it was that which had been given to Charles by his failure to save the life of Strafford. Yet scarcely was Strafford dead when he prepared himself to tread once more the weary round of intrigue which had already cost him so dear. It was now known that he proposed to visit Scotland in person as soon as the treaty between the kingdoms was concluded.2 Those who were trusted with his secrets were aware that he was looking to this journey as a means of regaining that authority which he had lost in England. Anything seemed to him to be better than an attempt to come to an understanding with Parliament.3 It is hardly likely that a secret shared

1 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiii. fol. 167 b, 180 b.

2 The Elector Palatine to the Queen of Bohemia, May 18.- Forster's Lives of British Statesmen, vi. 71.

3 'Sua Maestà francamente affermà di transferirsi a dissegno per aventura di rialzare con la presenza sua qualche altra machina et migliorar

21,

la conditione della propria autorità.'-Giustinian to the Doge, May 31, Ven. Transcripts. The intentions of the King were acknowledged by the

amongst so many would be long a secret from Pym.

Lady Carlisle and Pym.

Lady

Carlisle, vexed, as it has been thought, at the King's abandonment of Strafford, placed her talents for political intrigue at the service of the Parliamentary statesman. Without any deep feelings herself, she loved to be of importance, and she was shrewd enough to make herself useful to the real leaders of men, and to despise those, who like the King and Queen, were decked in the mere trappings of authority. To the excitement of a youth of pleasure was to follow the excitement of a middle age of treachery. It was to be her sport to listen to trustful words dropped in confidence, and to betray them to those who were ready to take advantage of her knowledge.

In looking for help from Scotland Charles was not altogether pursuing a shadow. There were already signs that the good

May 17. Possibility

of a breach

between the

Parliament and the Scots.

Rothes won

by the Court.

understanding between the English Parliament and the Scots was somewhat shaken. The delay in providing the Scottish army with supplies had raised discontent, and it was by no means certain that the nobles of the northern kingdom would expose themselves to further risk for the sake of establishing Presbyterianism in England. One of the foremost of their leaders, Rothes, had already been won over by the promise of preferment in England and of a rich English wife. He may probably be credited with sincerity when he alleged that he had first assured himself that the interests of his own country were secured,1 but it is hardly likely that his new position was taken up on purely political considerations. Progress of the negotia. The public negotiation, too, was drifting upon shoals which might prove dangerous.2 The Scots had continued to urge a union in religion between the two countries, Queen in a conversation after she arrived in Holland in the following year.

tion.

1 Rothes' Narrative, 225.

2 The notes of the Scots' demands in Moore's Diary (Harl. MSS. cccclxxviii. fol. 18) are said to be taken from those read by Sir J. Borough on April 22. The figures seem to have been subsequently changed, to judge from D'Ewes's notes of the debates on the subject. In other respects no alteration appears to have been made.

1641

THE TREATY WITH THE SCOTS.

377

which would be certain to offend a large party in England, and the appointment of a commission to draw up a scheme for freedom of trade which would be certain to offend all Englishmen without distinction of party.

Debate on

On the 17th the Commons went into committee on the demands of the Scots for unity of religion. The ecclesiastical opponents of Episcopacy resorted to the ignominious union. tactics of placing Culpepper in the chair, in order to silence that vigorous debater in the warm discussion which they foresaw. In spite of the objections of Hyde and Falkland, the Commons determined to return a courteous answer, 'that this House doth approve of the affection of their brethren in Scotland, in their desire of a conformity in Church government between the two nations, and doth give them thanks for it; and as they have already taken into consideration the reformation of Church government, so they will proceed therein in due time, as shall best conduce to the glory of God and the peace of the Church.' 2

Courteous answer to the Scots.

Such a resolution bound the House to nothing, but it was

May 18. Act of oblivion proposed.

May 19. Further

Scottish

treaty.

enough to show that the majority was resolved not to be led into a quarrel with the Scots. The next day it was decided that the Commissioners should be asked to draw up an Act of oblivion. There was more votes on the difficulty in consenting to a proposal which had been made by the Scots, that war should never again be declared between the two kingdoms without the consent of the Parliaments. It was too great an innovation on existing practice to pass without resistance from Culpepper and others. In the end, however, it was referred back to the English Commissioners for further consideration.3 A similar course was adopted with the article about May 21. freedom of trade, and on the 21st arrangements were made for the payment of the sums which would be due to the

May 20.

190.

'D'Ewes protested against this. D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiii.

2 C. F. ii. 148. D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiii. fol. 192. Newsmcccclxvii. fol. 38.

letter, Sloane MSS.

3 C. F. ii. 150.

D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiii. fol. 202.