1641 CHARLES AND THE LORDS. 383 June 8. and thrown out by the Lords. functions, and on the probability that the bishops, if they were still allowed to have votes, would use them to support their own encroachments on the liberties of the subject. The Lords listened, but were unconvinced. On the 8th they threw out the Bill on the third reading.1 Differences of opinion might prevail on the subject of Church-government. There was no difference of opinion on Bills to the necessity of limiting the prerogative. On the diminish the morning of the 8th, Selden, who was a steady voter prerogative. on the episcopal side, brought in three Bills--one for declaring the illegality of ship-money, a second for limiting the extent of the forests, and a third for abolishing the knighthood fines. In the afternoon of the same day Bills for the abolition of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission were read a third time without a division.2 Both parties were unanimously resolved that Charles should hereafter reign under strict constitutional limits. Charles's one path of safety was been in the days of Strafford's trial. Charles's success. still the same as it had Only by frankly accepting the constitutional limits imposed on him could he chances of avail himself of the support which the Lords were anxious to give him on account of their divergence of opinion from the Commons on the question of Church government. Such, it can hardly be doubted, was the advice offered by Bristol in June, as it had been in April. Charles had one ear for Bristol, and another for the Queen. No combination was too fantastic, no scheme too audacious, to be acceptable to Henrietta Maria, and to gain at least temporary approval from her husband's weakness. June 2. On June 2 the Queen had an interview with RosThe Queen's setti. She bemoaned the impossibility of inducing Charles to change his religion. She could, however, state positively that if the Pope would send money— interview with Rossetti. MSS. xxv. No. 162) this step was taken by the Lords of purpose, it was thought, to have stopped the Bill of Root-and-Branch.' If so, Dering was very near being justified by the event. 1L. F. iv. 239, 265. 2 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiii. fol. 285. C. J. ii. 171. 150,000l. was the sum named-he would grant religious liberty in Ireland, and in England would for the present allow the Catholics to frequent the chapels of the Queen, and of the foreign ambassadors. When once he had again become the master of his people, the Catholics should have full religious liberty, with permission to open chapels of their own. Every religion except theirs and that of the English Church should be extirpated. The Queen further engaged to write a letter to Cardinal Barberini, in which these promises should be made, and this letter was to be countersigned by Charles.1 Negotiation with the Irish Catholics. It would seem the height of madness to expect to make use of help from the Pope and from the Scottish Presbyterians at the same time. Yet more than this was behind. A negotiation was being carried on with the Irish Catholics in which they engaged, in return for liberty of worship, to give armed assistance to the King, though as yet the actual terms were not absolutely settled.2 Nothing of all this was known at that time to the leaders of the Commons; but enough was known of Charles's recent proceedings to render them utterly distrustful. On the day on which the new constitutional Bills were read, Fiennes produced the first report of the Secret Committee on June 8. the Army Plot. He told of the attempt to introduce Report on Billingsley's men into the Tower, of the schemes for the Army Plot. inciting the army against Parliament, of the fortification of Portsmouth, and of the suspicions of an intrigue with the French Government. Examinations were read which left no doubt that, whatever the King's personal action might have been, the plot for exciting the army to take part in political affairs originated at Whitehall.3 the House. Every word of this long report was a death-blow to the Tumult in hopes of those who had thought to see Charles at the head of a reformed government, and to save Episcopacy through him. The feelings to which it gave rise found 1 Rossetti to Barberini, June R. O. Transcripts. 14 3 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiii. fol. 290. cccclxxviii. fol. 34. Moore's Diary, ibid. 1641 A RIOT IN THE HOUSE. 385 The mention of Goring's vent in a scene of wild confusion. oath of secrecy called up Wilmot. He did not know, he said, how Goring could without perjury have discovered that which he had sworn to keep secret. Digby replied that the oath was in itself unlawful, and did not bind Goring if he had been lawfully called on to reveal what he knew. Ever since Digby's unpopular vote on the Bill of Attainder he had had many enemies in the House. They perhaps understood him to imply that Goring had made his revelation without being called on lawfully. Digby had to explain his meaning and Wilmot to ask pardon of the House. Even this was not enough. Cries were raised calling on both to withdraw. Before the question could be put, Digby walked out. Some of the members dashed forward to stop him. Others did their best to rescue him from the assault. Both Digby and Wilmot succeeded in reaching the door without injury. Their withdrawal was followed by a long and disorderly debate. In the midst of it the Serjeant-at-Arms brought in candles. A fresh dispute arose on the question whether candles might be brought in without the positive order of the House. Two of Digby's friends, anxious to prevent an adjournment, perhaps because they believed that the majority was on their side, snatched the candles from the Serjeant and set them on the floor. This was followed by a scuffle in which the Serjeant's cloak was torn from his back. The House at last broke up without coming to any conclusion. So great was the excitement that the imperturbable Lenthall confessed next morning that he had not expected to come away alive.1 The two members who had seized the candles, were treated as scapegoats for the sins of the House, and were sent to the Tower for a few days.2 Then followed the reading of a letter written by Henry Percy to his brother Northumberland, which contained 1 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiii. fol. 299. 2 Ibid. clxiii. fol. 301. The majority for sending them was 189 to 172. The names of the tellers, as given by D'Ewes, show that the minority was of the Episcopalian party. The tellers, as is often the case, are reversed in the Journals. There is usually evidence forthcoming to show that D'Ewes is right and the Journals wrong. fresh revelations of the Army Plot. Goring's character was at once cleared as far as a vote of the House could June 9. Henry do it. Percy, however, in his letter, distinctly Percy's letter. charged Goring with being implicated with Jermyn in a deeper plot than that in which he had himself been concerned. The next morning Marten moved that Digby should be sent for. Kirton told the House that such a motion had come too June 10. late the King had raised Digby to the peerage. Digby made He had himself seen him putting on his robes to take his place in the other House. a peer. 1 If the feeling which had prompted Charles's act was natural, he had taken the worst possible way of giving it expression. Digby had not yet been condemned, and he was hardly likely to suffer worse consequences for his unguarded language than a few days' imprisonment. By making him a peer, Charles showed not merely that unpopularity in the House of Commons was the highest passport to his favour, but that he was ready to increase the number of those peers who would use their influence in the Upper House to place it in opposition to the Lower. An additional reason was given for keeping the organisation of the Church out of the hands of the King. How far was Inside the House of Commons the party which advocated a thorough change in the system of Church government was rather desirous of overthrowing an ecclesiastical despotism which they knew not how to remodel, than inspired with any strong preference for any other system to be established in its room. To a certain extent, no doubt, the majority might be regarded as Presbyterian ; but, if so, their Presbythe House of terianism was very different from the zealous devotion of Henderson and Dickson in the North. wanted to have ministers who would preach decided Protestantism of the Calvinistic type, and after their experience of the last few years they thought that they were more likely to have what they wanted without bishops than with them; but they had no enthusiasm for the Scottish discipline. Commons Presbyterian? 1 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxiii. fol. 301. They 1641 Plans of and Usher. CHURCH REFORM. 387 If the minority were to contend against this widespread feeling it behoved them to act as well as to criticise. Williams, indeed, had been doing something. He had been gathering together opinions from divines of the most opposite views, and was understood to be elaborating a scheme in which all legitimate desires would find their fulfilment. Usher, too, with the full weight of his piety and learning, had allowed his friends to circulate a draft of a constitution for the Church, in which bishops were to appear as the heads of councils of presbyters, and were to be disqualified from acting without their advice. Such a theme had an excellent appearance on paper. It was not quite so clear what would be its practical result, if bishops like Wren or Montague found themselves face to face. with a council composed of ministers like Burgess and Marshall. The plan, for some reason or another, fell flat on the world. There was a good deal of talk about the advantages of Primitive Episcopacy, but there was no support given even in the House of Lords to any particular project for reducing it to practice. If the King had made any one of these plans his own, and had shown himself in earnest in combating the evils of the existing system, something might perhaps have been done. But Charles gave no sign that he took any interest in the matter. The Root-and-Branch Bill was the only scheme of reform practically in the field. June 11. The Rootand-Branch Bill in On June 11 that Bill was before a committee of the whole House. Hyde was placed in the chair, as it is said in order that his voice should thus be silenced on the Episcopalian side. If it was so, he did his best. to pay back his opponents in their own coin. Somewhere about this time Charles sent for Hyde, greatly Charles and Hyde. to his astonishment. Between the two men there was much in common. Both of them were attached to the committee. In the Rossetti Papers there is a running reference to a negotiation, in which Usher professes his readiness to become a Catholic if he could obtain an income equivalent to 500l. a year. I am utterly incredulous. The Padre Egidio, through whom it was conducted, was perhaps hoaxed, or deceived himself. |