Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 20)

R. Southey, Lives of the British Admirals, volume 2, page 319.

"The succours which Elizabeth had from time to time afforded to the insurgents of the Netherlands was not the only cause of Philip's resentment and of his desire for revenge. She had fomented the disturbances in Portugal, … and her captains, among whom Sir Francis Drake was the most active, had for many years committed unjustifiable depredations on the Spanish possessions of South America, and more than once on the coasts of the Peninsula itself. … By Spanish historians, these hostilities are represented as unprovoked in their origin, and as barbarous in their execution, and candor must allow that there is but too much justice in the complaint."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 4, section 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, History of England, volume 12, chapter 35.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1588. The Spanish Armada.

"Perhaps in the history of mankind there has never been a vast project of conquest conceived and matured in so protracted and yet so desultory a manner, as was this famous Spanish invasion. … At last, on the 28th, 29th and 30th May, 1588, the fleet, which had been waiting at Lisbon more than a month for favourable weather, set sail from that port, after having been duly blessed by the Cardinal Archduke Albert, viceroy of Portugal. There were rather more than 130 ships in all, divided into 10 squadrons. … The total tonnage of the fleet was 59,120: the number of guns was 3,165. Of Spanish troops there were 19,295 on board: there were 8,252 sailors and 2,088 galley-slaves. Besides these, there was a force of noble volunteers, belonging to the most illustrious houses of Spain, with their attendants, amounting to nearly 2,000 in all. … The size of the ships ranged from 1,200 tons to 300. The galleons, of which there were about 60, were huge round-stemmed clumsy vessels, with bulwarks three or four feet thick, and built up at stem and stern, like castles. {843} The galeasses—of which there were four—were a third larger than the ordinary galley, and were rowed each by 300 galley-slaves. They consisted of an enormous towering fortress at the stern, a castellated structure almost equally massive in front, with seats for the rowers amidships. At stem and stern and between each of the slaves' benches were heavy cannon. These galeasses were floating edifices, very wonderful to contemplate. They were gorgeously decorated. There were splendid state-apartments, cabins, chapels, and pulpits in each, and they were amply provided with awnings, cushions, streamers, standards, gilded saints and bands of music. To take part in an ostentatious pageant, nothing could be better devised. To fulfil the great objects of a war-vessel—to sail and to fight—they were the worst machines ever launched upon the ocean. The four galleys were similar to the galeasses in every respect except that of size, in which they were by one-third inferior. All the ships of the fleet—galeasses, galleys, galleons, and hulks—were so encumbered with top-hamper, so over-weighted in proportion to their draught of water, that they could bear but little canvas, even with smooth seas and light and favourable winds. … Such was the machinery which Philip had at last set afloat, for the purpose of dethroning Elizabeth and establishing the inquisition in England. One hundred and forty ships, 11,000 Spanish veterans, as many more recruits, partly Spanish, partly Portuguese, 2,000 grandees, as many galley slaves, and 300 barefooted friars and inquisitors. The plan was simple. Medina Sidonia [the captain-general of the Armada] was to proceed straight from Lisbon to Calais roads: there he was to wait for the Duke of Parma [Spanish commander in the Netherlands], who was to come forth from Newport, Sluys, and Dunkirk, bringing with him his 17,000 veterans, and to assume the chief command of the whole expedition. They were then to cross the channel to Dover, land the army of Parma, reinforced with 6,000 Spaniards from the fleet, and with these 23,000 men Alexander was to march at once upon London. Medina Sidonia was to seize and fortify the Isle of Wight, guard the entrance of the harbours against any interference from the Dutch and English fleets, and—so soon as the conquest of England had been effected—he was to proceed to Ireland. … A strange omission had however been made in the plan from first to last. The commander of the whole expedition was the Duke of Parma: on his head was the whole responsibility. Not a gun was to be fired—if it could be avoided—until he had come forth with his veterans to make his junction with the Invincible Armada off Calais. Yet there was no arrangement whatever to enable him to come forth—not the slightest provision to effect that junction. … Medina could not go to Farnese [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma], nor could Farnese come to Medina. The junction was likely to be difficult, and yet it had never once entered the heads of Philip or his counsellors to provide for that difficulty. … With as much sluggishness as might have been expected from their clumsy architecture, the ships of the Armada consumed nearly three weeks in sailing from Lisbon to the neighbourhood of Cape Finisterre. Here they were overtaken by a tempest. … Of the squadron of galleys, one was already sunk in the sea, and two of the others had been conquered by their own slaves. The fourth rode out the gale with difficulty, and joined the rest of the fleet, which ultimately reassembled at Coruña; the ships having, in distress, put in first at Vivera, Ribadeo, Gijon, and other northern ports of Spain. At the Groyne—as the English of that day were accustomed to call Coruña—they remained a month, repairing damages and recruiting; and on the 22d of July (N. S.) the Armada set sail. Six days later, the Spaniards took soundings, thirty leagues from the Scilly Islands, and on Friday, the 29th of July, off the Lizard, they had the first glimpse of the land of promise presented them by Sixtus V. of which they had at last come to take possession. On the same day and night the blaze and smoke of ten thousand beacon-fires from the Land's End to Margate, and from the Isle of Wight to Cumberland, gave warning to every Englishman that the enemy was at last upon them."

J. L. Motley, History of the United Netherlands, chapter 19.

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, History of England, volume 12, chapter 36.

J. A. Froude, The Spanish Story of the Armada.

R. Southey, Lives of British Admirals, volume 2, pages 327-334.

C. M. Yonge, Cameos from English History, 5th series, chapter 27.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1588. The Destruction of the Armada.

"The great number of the English, the whole able-bodied population being drilled, counterbalanced the advantage possessed, from their universal use of firearms, by the invaders. In all the towns there were trained bands (a civic militia); and, either in regular service or as volunteers, thousands of all ranks had received a military training on the continent. The musters represented 100,000 men as ready to assemble at their head-quarters at a day's notice. It was, as nearly always, in its military administration that the vulnerable point of England lay. The fitting-out and victualling of the navy was disgraceful; and it is scarcely an excuse for the councillors that they were powerless against the parsimony of the Queen. The Government maintained its hereditary character from the days of Ethelred the Unready, and the arrangements for assembling the defensive forces were not really completed by them until after the Armada was destroyed. The defeat of the invaders, if they had landed, must have been accomplished by the people. The flame of patriotism never burnt purer: all Englishmen alike, Romanists, Protestant Episcopalians, and Puritans, were banded together to resist the invader. Every hamlet was on the alert for the beacon-signal. Some 15,000 men were already under arms in London; the compact Tilbury Fort was full, and a bridge of boats from Tilbury to Gravesend blocked the Thames. Philip's preparations had been commensurate with the grandeur of his scheme. The dockyards in his ports in the Low Countries, the rivers, the canals, and the harbours of Spain, Portugal, Naples, and Italy, echoed the clang of the shipwrights' hammers. A vast armament, named, as if to provoke Nemesis, the 'Invincible Armada,' on which for three years the treasures of the American mines had been lavished, at length rode the seas, blessed with Papal benedictions and under the patronage of the saints. It comprised 65 huge galleons, of from 700 to 1,300 tons, with sides of enormous thickness, and built high like castles; four great galleys, each carrying 50 guns and 450 men, and rowed by 300 slaves; 56 armed merchantmen, and 20 pinnaces. These 129 vessels were armed with 2,430 brass and iron guns of the best manufacture, but each gun was furnished only with 50 rounds. {844} They carried 5,000 seamen: Parma's army amounted to 30,000 men—Spaniards, Germans, Italians and Walloons; and 19,000 Castilians and Portuguese, with 1,000 gentlemen volunteers, were coming to join him. To maintain this army after it had effected a landing, a great store of provisions—sufficient for 40,000 men for six months—was placed on board. The overthrow of this armament was effected by the navy and the elements. From the Queen's parsimony the State had only 36 ships in the fleet; but the City of London furnished 33 vessels; 18 were supplied by the liberality of private individuals; and nearly 100 smaller ships were obtained on hire; so that the fleet was eventually brought up to nearly 30,000 tons, carrying 16,000 men, and equipped with 837 guns. But there was sufficient ammunition for only a single day's fighting. Fortunately for Elizabeth's Government, the Spaniards, having been long driven from the channel by privateers, were now unacquainted with its currents; and they could procure, as the Dutch were in revolt, only two or three competent pilots. The Spanish commander was the Duke of Medina-Sidonia, an incapable man, but he had under him some of the ablest of Philip's officers. When the ships set out from the Tagus, on the 29th May, 1588, a storm came on, and the Armada had to put into Coruña to refit. From that port the Armada set out at the beginning of July, in lovely weather, with just enough wind to wave from the mastheads the red crosses which they bore as symbols of their crusade. The Duke of Medina entered the Channel on the 18th July, and the rear of his fleet was immediately harassed by a cannonade from the puny ships of England, commanded by Lord Howard of Effingham (Lord High Admiral), with Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, Winter, Fenner, and other famous captains. With the loss of three galleons from fire or boarding, the Spanish commander, who was making for Flanders to embark Parma's army, anchored in Calais roads. In the night fire-ships—an ancient mode of warfare which had just been reintroduced by the Dutch—passed in among the Armada, a fierce gale completed their work, and morning revealed the remnant of the Invincible Armada scattered along the coast from Calais to Ostend. Eighty vessels remained to Medina, and with these he sailed up the North Sea, to round the British Isles. But the treacherous currents of the Orkneys and the Hebrides were unknown to his officers, and only a few ships escaped the tempests of the late autumn. More than two-thirds of the expedition perished, and of the remnant that again viewed the hills of Spain all but a few hundreds returned only to die."

H. R. Clinton, From Crécy to Assye, chapter 7.

In the fighting on the 23d of July, "the Spaniards' shot flew for the most part over the heads of the English, without doing execution, Cock being the only Englishman that died bravely in the midst of his enemies in a ship of his own. The reason of this was, that the English ships, being far less than the enemy's, made the attack with more quickness and agility; and when they had given a broadside, they presently sheered off to a convenient distance, and levelled their shot so directly at the bigger and more unwieldy ships of the Spaniards, as seldom to miss their aim; though the Lord Admiral did not think it safe or proper to grapple with them, as some advised, with much more heat than discretion, because that the enemy's fleet carried a considerable army within their sides, whereas ours had no such advantage. Besides their ships far exceeded ours in number and bulk, and were much stronger and higher built; insomuch that their men, having the opportunity to ply us from such lofty hatches, must inevitably destroy those that were obliged, as it were, to fight beneath them. … On the 24th day of the month there was a cessation on both sides, and the Lord Admiral sent some of his smaller vessels to the nearest of the English harbours, to fetch a supply of powder and ammunition; then he divided the fleet into four squadrons, the first of which he commanded himself, the second he committed to Drake, the third to Hawkins, and the fourth to Frobisher. He likewise singled out of the main fleet some smaller vessels to begin the attack on all sides at once, in the very dead of the night; but a calm happening spoiled his design." On the 26th "the Spanish fleet sailed forward with a fair and soft gale at southwest and by south; and the English chased them close at the heels; but so far was this Invincible Armada from alarming the sea-coasts with any frightful apprehensions, that the English gentry of the younger sort entered themselves volunteers, and taking leave of their parents, wives, and children, did, with incredible cheerfulness, hire ships at their own charge; and, in pure love to their country, joined the grand fleet in vast numbers. … On the 27th of this month the Spanish Fleet came to an anchor before Calais, their pilots having acquainted them that if they ventured any farther there was some danger that the force of the current might drive them away into the Northern Channel. Not far from them came likewise the English Admiral to an anchor, and lay within shot of their ships. The English fleet consisted by this time of 140 sail; all of them ships of force, and very tight and nimble sailors, and easily manageable upon a tack. But, however, the main brunt of the engagement lay not upon more than 15 or 16 of them. … The Lord Admiral got ready eight of his worst ships the very day after the Spaniards came to an anchor; and having bestowed upon them a good plenty of pitch, tar, and rosin, and lined them well with brimstone and other combustible matter, they sent them before the wind, in the dead time of the night, under the conduct of Young and Prowse, into the midst of the Spanish fleet. … The Spaniards reported that the duke, upon the approach of the fire-ships, ordered the whole fleet to weigh anchor and stand to sea, but that when the danger was over every ship should return to her station. This is what he did himself, and he likewise discharged a great gun as a signal to the rest to do as he did; the report, however, was heard but by very few, by reason their fears had dispersed them at that rate that some of them ventured out of the main ocean, and others sailed up the shallows of Flanders. In the meantime Drake and Fenner played briskly with their cannon upon the Spanish fleet, as it was rendezvousing over against Graveling. … On the last day of the month the wind blew hard at north-west early in the morning, and the Spanish fleet attempting to get back again to the Straits of Calais, was driven toward Zealand. {845} The English then gave over the chase, because, in the Spaniards' opinion, they perceived them making haste enough to their own destruction. For the wind, lying at the W. N. W. point, could not choose but force them on the shoals and sands on the coast of Zealand. But the wind happening to come about in a little time to Southwest and by West they went before the wind. … Being now, therefore, clear of danger in the main ocean, they steered northward, and the English fleet renewed the chase after them. … The Spaniards having now laid aside all the thoughts and hopes of returning to attempt the English, and perceiving their main safety lay in their flight, made no stay or stop at any port whatever. And thus this mighty armada, which had been three whole years fitting out, and at a vast expense, met in one month's time with several attacks, and was at last routed, with a vast slaughter on their side, and but a very few of the English missing, and not one ship lost, except that small vessel of Cock's. … When, therefore, the Spanish fleet had taken a large compass round Britain, by the coasts of Scotland, the Orcades, and Ireland, and had weathered many storms, and suffered as many wrecks and blows, and all the inconveniences of war and weather, it made a shift to get home again, laden with nothing but shame and dishonour. … Certain it is that several of their ships perished in their flight, being cast away on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, and that above 700 soldiers were cast on shore in Scotland. … As for those who had the ill fortune to be drove upon the Irish shore, they met with the most barbarous treatment; for some of them were butchered by the wild Irish, and the rest put to the sword by the Lord Deputy."

W. Camden, History of Queen Elizabeth.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, Historical Biographies: Drake.

E. S. Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles, chapter 10.

C. Kingsley, Westward Ho! chapter 31.

R. Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, &C. (E. Goldsmid's ed.), volume 7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1596. Alliance with Henry IV. of France against Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1596. Dutch and English expedition against Cadiz.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1597. Abolition of the privileges of the Hanse merchants.

See HANSA TOWNS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1600. The first charter to the East India Company.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1601. The first Poor Law.

See POOR LAWS, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1603. Accession of King James I. The Stuart family.

On the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603, James VI. of Scotland became also the accepted king of England (under the title of James I.), by virtue of his descent from that daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII., Margaret Tudor, who married James IV. king of Scots. His grandfather was James V.; his mother was Marie Stuart, or Mary, Queen of Scots, born of her marriage with Lord Darnley. He was the ninth in the line of the Scottish dynasty of the Stuarts, or Stewarts, for an account of the origin of which see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370. He had been carefully alienated from the religion of his mother and reared in Protestantism, to make him an acceptable heir to the English throne. He came to it at a time when the autocratic spirit of the Tudors, making use of the peculiar circumstances of their time, had raised the royal power and prerogative to their most exalted pitch; and he united the two kingdoms of Scotland and England under one sovereignty. "The noble inheritance fell to a race who, comprehending not one of the conditions by which alone it was possible to be retained, profligately misused until they lost it utterly. The calamity was in no respect foreseen by the statesman, Cecil, to whose exertion it was mainly due that James was seated on the throne: yet in regard to it he cannot be held blameless. He was doubtless right in the course he took, in so far as he thereby satisfied a national desire, and brought under one crown two kingdoms that with advantage to either could not separately exist; but it remains a reproach to his name that he let slip the occasion of obtaining for the people some ascertained and settled guarantees which could not then have been refused, and which might have saved half a century of bloodshed. None such were proposed to James. He was allowed to seize a prerogative, which for upwards of fifty years had been strained to a higher pitch than at any previous period of the English history; and his clumsy grasp closed on it without a sign of question or remonstrance from the leading statesmen of England. 'Do I mak the judges? Do I mak the bishops?' he exclaimed, as the powers of his new dominion dawned on his delighted sense: 'Then, God's wauns! I mak what likes me, law and gospel!' It was even so. And this license to make gospel and law was given, with other far more questionable powers, to a man whose personal appearance and qualities were as suggestive of contempt, as his public acts were provocative of rebellion. It is necessary to dwell upon this part of the subject; for it is only just to his not more culpable but far less fortunate successor to say, that in it lies the source and explanation of not a little for which the penalty was paid by him. What is called the Great Rebellion can have no comment so pregnant as that which is suggested by the character and previous career of the first of the Stuart kings."

J. Forster, Historical and Biographical Essays, p.227.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1604. The Hampton Court Conference.

James I. "was not long seated on the English throne, when a conference was held at Hampton Court, to hear the complaints of the puritans, as those good men were called who scrupled to conform to the ceremonies, and sought a reformation of the abuses of the church of England. On this occasion, surrounded with his deans, bishops, and archbishops, who breathed into his ears the music of flattery, and worshipped him as an oracle, James, like king Solomon, to whom he was fond of being compared, appeared in all his glory, giving his judgment on every question, and displaying before the astonished prelates, who kneeled every time they addressed him, his polemic powers and theological learning. Contrasting his present honours with the scenes from which he had just escaped in his native country, he began by congratulating himself that, 'by the blessing of Providence, he was brought into the promised land, where religion was professed in its purity; where he sat among grave, learned, and reverend men; and that now he was not, as formerly, a king without state and honour, nor in a place where order was banished, and beardless boys would brave him to his face.' {846} After long conferences, during which the king gave the most extraordinary exhibitions of his learning, drollery, and profaneness, he was completely thrown off his guard by the word presbytery, which Dr. Reynolds, a representative of the puritans, had unfortunately employed. Thinking that he aimed at a 'Scotch presbytery,' James rose into a towering passion, declaring that presbytery agreed as well with monarchy as God and the devil. 'Then,' said he, 'Jack and Tom, and Will and Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me and my council, and all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and say, It must be thus: Then Dick shall reply, and say, Nay marry, but we will have it thus. And, therefore, here I must once reiterate my former speech, Le Roy s'avisera (the king will look after it). Stay, I pray you, for one seven years before you demand that of me; and if you then find me pursy and fat, and my wind-pipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to you; for let that government be once up, I am sure I shall be kept in breath; then we shall all of us have work enough, both our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow lazy, let that alone." Then, putting his hand to his hat, 'My lords the bishops,' said his majesty, 'I may thank you that these men plead for my supremacy; they think they can't make their party good against you, but by appealing unto it. But if once you are out, and they in place, I know what would become of my supremacy; for no bishop, no king, as I said before.' Then rising from his chair, he concluded the conference with, 'If this be all they have to say, I'll make them conform, or I'll harry them out of this land, or else do worse.' The English lords and prelates were so filled with admiration at the quickness of apprehension and dexterity in controversy shown by the king, that, as Dr. Barlow informs us, 'one of them said his majesty spoke by the instinct of the Spirit of God; and the lord chancellor, as he went out, said to the dean of Chester, I have often heard that Rex est mixta persona cum sacerdote (that a king is partly a priest), but I never saw the truth thereof till this day!' In these circumstances, buoyed up with flattery by his English clergy, and placed beyond the reach of the faithful admonitions of the Scottish ministry, we need not wonder to find James prosecuting, with redoubled ardour, his scheme of reducing the church of Scotland to the English model."

T. McCrie, Sketches of Scottish Church History, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution, chapter 1, sections 3.

G. G. Perry, History of the Church of England, volume 1, chapter 2.

T. Fuller, Church History of Britain, book 10, section 1 (volume 3).

England: A. D. 1605. The Gunpowder Plot.

"The Roman Catholics had expected great favour and indulgence on the accession of James, both as he was descended from Mary, whose life they believed to have been sacrificed to their cause, and as he himself, in his early youth, was imagined to have shown some partiality towards them. … Very soon they discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised and enraged to find James, on all occasions, express his intention of strictly executing the laws enacted against them, and of persevering in all the rigorous measures of Elizabeth. Catesby, a gentleman of good parts and of an ancient family, first thought of a most extraordinary method of revenge; and he opened his intention to Piercy, a descendant of the illustrious house of Northumberland. In vain, said he, would you put an end to the king's life: he has children. … To serve any good purpose, we must destroy, at one blow, the king, the royal family, the Lords, the Commons, and bury all our enemies in one common ruin. Happily, they are all assembled on the first meeting of Parliament, and afford us the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining, may run a mine below the hall in which they meet, and choosing the very moment when the king harangues both Houses, consign over to destruction these determined foes to all piety and religion. … Piercy was charmed with this project of Catesby; and they agreed to communicate the matter to a few more, and among the rest to Thomas Winter, whom they sent over to Flanders, in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish service, with whose zeal and courage they were all thoroughly acquainted. … All this passed in the spring and summer of the year 1604; when the conspirators also hired a house in Piercy's name, adjoining to that in which the Parliament was to assemble. Towards the end of that year they began their operations. … They soon pierced the wall, though three yards in thickness; but on approaching the other side they were somewhat startled at hearing a noise which they knew not how to account for. Upon inquiry, they found that it came from the vault below the House of Lords; that a magazine of coals had been kept there; and that, as the coals were selling off, the vault would be let to the highest bidder. The opportunity was immediately seized; the place hired by Piercy; thirty-six barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up with faggots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung open, and everybody admitted, as if it contained nothing dangerous. … The day [November 5, 1605], so long wished for, now approached, on which the Parliament was appointed to assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above twenty persons, had been religiously kept, during the space of near a year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of punishment, no hope of reward, had as yet induced any one conspirator, either to abandon the enterprise or make a discovery of it." But the betrayal was unwittingly made, after all, by one in the plot, who tried to deter Lord Monteagle from attending the opening session of Parliament, by sending him a mysterious message of warning. Lord Monteagle showed the letter to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state, who attached little importance to it, but who laid it before the king. The Scottish Solomon read it with more anxiety and was shrewdly led by some expressions in the missive to order an inspection of the vaults underneath the parliamentary houses. The gunpowder was discovered and Guy Fawkes was found in the place, with matches for the firing of it on his person. Being put to the rack he disclosed the names of his accomplices. They were seized, tried and executed, or killed while resisting arrest.

D. Hume, History of England, volume 4, chapter 46.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of England, chapter 6, (volume 1).

J. Lingard, History of England, volume 9, chapter 1.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1606. The chartering of the Virginia Company, with its London and Plymouth branches.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

{847}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1620. The Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1620. The exodus of the Pilgrims and the planting of their colony at New Plymouth.

See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1621. Claims in North America conflicting with France. Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1638. The grants in Newfoundland to Baltimore and Kirke.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625. The Protestant Alliance in the Thirty Years War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625. The gains of Parliament in the reign of James I.

"The commons had now been engaged [at the end of the reign of James I.], for more than twenty years, in a struggle to restore and to fortify their own and their fellow subjects' liberties. They had obtained in this period but one legislative measure of importance, the late declaratory act against monopolies. But they had rescued from disuse their ancient right of impeachment. They had placed on record a protestation of their claim to debate all matters of public concern. They had remonstrated against the usurped prerogatives of binding the subject by proclamation, and of levying customs at the out-ports. They had secured beyond controversy their exclusive privilege of determining contested elections of their members. They had maintained, and carried indeed to an unwarrantable extent, their power of judging and inflicting punishment, even for offences not committed against their house. Of these advantages some were evidently incomplete; and it would require the most vigorous exertions of future parliaments to realize them. But such exertions the increased energy of the nation gave abundant cause to anticipate. A deep and lasting love of freedom had taken hold of every class except perhaps the clergy; from which, when viewed together with the rash pride of the court, and the uncertainty of constitutional principles and precedents, collected through our long and various history, a calm by-stander might presage that the ensuing reign would not pass without disturbance, nor perhaps end without confusion."

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapter 6.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625. Marriage of Charles with Henrietta Maria of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628. The accession of Charles I. Beginning of the struggle of King and Parliament.

"The political and religious schism which had originated in the 16th century was, during the first quarter of the 17th century, constantly widening. Theories tending to Turkish despotism were in fashion at Whitehall. Theories tending to republicanism were in favour with a large portion of the House of Commons. … While the minds of men were in this state, the country, after a peace of many years, at length engaged in a war [with Spain, and with Austria and the Emperor in the Palatinate] which required strenuous exertions. This war hastened the approach of the great constitutional crisis. It was necessary that the king should have a large military force. He could not have such a force without money. He could not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament. It followed, therefore, that he either must administer the government in conformity with the sense of the House of Commons, or must venture on such a violation of the fundamental laws of the land as had been unknown during several centuries. … Just at this conjuncture James died [March 27, 1625]. Charles I. succeeded to the throne. He had received from nature a far better understanding, a far stronger will, and a far keener and firmer temper than his father's. He had inherited his father's political theories, and was much more disposed than his father to carry them into practice. … His taste in literature and art was excellent, his manner dignified though not gracious, his domestic life without blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in truth, impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked ways. … He seems to have learned from the theologians whom he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there could be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic authority; and that, in every promise which he made, there was an implied reservation that such promise might be broken in case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole judge. And now began that hazardous game on which were staked the destinies of the English people. It was played on the side of the House of Commons with keenness, but with admirable dexterity, coolness and perseverance. Great statesmen who looked far behind them and far before them were at the head of that assembly. They were resolved to place the king in such a situation that he must either conduct the administration in conformity with the wishes of his Parliament, or make outrageous attacks on the most sacred principles of the constitution. They accordingly doled out supplies to him very sparingly. He found that he must govern either in harmony with the House of Commons, or in defiance of all law. His choice was soon made. He dissolved his first Parliament, and levied taxes by his own authority. He convoked a second Parliament [1626] and found it more intractable than the first. He again resorted to the expedient of dissolution, raised fresh taxes without any show of legal right, and threw the chiefs of the opposition into prison. At the same time a new grievance, which the peculiar feelings and habits of the English nation made insupportably painful, and which seemed to all discerning men to be of fearful augury, excited general discontent and alarm. Companies of soldiers were billeted on the people; and martial law was, in some places, substituted for the ancient jurisprudence of the realm. The king called a third Parliament [1628], and soon perceived that the opposition was stronger and fiercer than ever. He now determined on a change of tactics. Instead of opposing an inflexible resistance to the demands of the commons, he, after much altercation and many evasions, agreed to a compromise which, if he had faithfully adhered to it, would have averted a long series of calamities. The Parliament granted an ample supply. The King ratified, in the most solemn manner, that celebrated law which is known by the name of the Petition of Right, and which is the second Great Charter of the liberties of England."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. R. Green, History of the English People, book 7, chapter 5 (volume 3).

F. P. Guizot, History of the English Revolution, book 1.

{848}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1627-1628. Buckingham's war with France and expedition to La Rochelle.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628. The Petition of Right.

"Charles had recourse to many subterfuges in hopes to elude the passing of this law; rather perhaps through wounded pride, as we may judge from his subsequent conduct, than much apprehension that it would create a serious impediment to his despotic schemes. He tried to persuade them to acquiesce in his royal promise not to arrest anyone without just cause, or in a simple confirmation of the Great Charter and other statutes in favour of liberty. The peers, too pliant in this instance to his wishes, and half receding from the patriot banner they had lately joined, lent him their aid by proposing amendments (insidious in those who suggested them, though not in the body of the house) which the commons firmly rejected. Even when the bill was tendered to him for that assent which it had been necessary, for the last two centuries, that the king should grant or refuse in a word, he returned a long and equivocal answer, from which it could only be collected that he did not intend to remit any portion of what he had claimed as his prerogative. But on an address from both houses for a more explicit answer, he thought fit to consent to the bill in the usual form. The commons, of whose harshness towards Charles his advocates have said so much, immediately passed a bill for granting five subsidies, about £350,000; a sum not too great for the wealth of the kingdom or for his exigencies, but considerable according to the precedents of former times, to which men naturally look. … The Petition of Right, … this statute is still called, from its not being drawn in the common form of an act of parliament." Although the king had been defeated in his attempt to qualify his assent to the Petition of Right, and had been forced to accede to it unequivocally, yet "he had the absurd and audacious insincerity (for we can use no milder epithets), to circulate 1,500 copies of it through the country, after the prorogation, with his first answer annexed; an attempt to deceive without the possibility of success. But instances of such ill-faith, accumulated as they are through the life of Charles, render the assertion of his sincerity a proof either of historical ignorance or of a want of moral delicacy."

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, volume 1, chapter 7.

The following is the text of the Petition of Right:

"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King Edward the First, commonly called, 'Statutum de Tallagio non concedendo,' that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be compelled to make any loans to the King against his will, because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a Benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in Parliament: Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions directed to sundry Commissioners in several counties with instructions have issued, by means whereof your people have been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them, not warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm, and have been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and others of them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers other charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants, Commissioners for Musters, Justices of Peace and others, by command or direction from your Majesty or your Privy Council, against the laws and free customs of this realm: And where also by the statute called, 'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled; or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land: And in the eight and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it was declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of the said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your realm, to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of late been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when for their deliverance they were brought before your Justices, by your Majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and receive as the Court should order, and their keepers commanded to certify the causes of their detainer; no cause was certified, but that they were detained by your Majesty's special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council, and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being charged with anything to which they might make answer according to the law: And whereas of late great companies of soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people: And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the land: {849} and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death; but by the laws established in this your realm, either by the customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament: and whereas no offender of what kind soever is exempted from the proceedings to be used, and punishments to be inflicted by the laws and statutes of this your realm: nevertheless of late divers commissions under your Majesty's Great Seal have issued forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and appointed Commissioners with power and authority to proceed within the land, according to the justice of martial law against such soldiers and mariners, or other dissolute persons joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery, felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever, and by such summary course and order, as is agreeable to martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, to proceed to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to cause to be executed and put to death, according to the law martial: By pretext whereof, some of your Majesty's subjects have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death, when and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might, and by no other ought to have been, adjudged and executed: And also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused, or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such commissions as aforesaid, which commissions, and all other of like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws and statutes of this your realm: They do therefore humbly pray your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without common consent by Act of Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time to come; and that the foresaid commissions for proceeding by martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land. All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom. [Which Petition being read the 2nd of June 1628, the King's answer was thus delivered unto it. The King willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions, contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative. On June 7 the answer was given in the accustomed form, 'Soit droit fait comme il est désiré.']"

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of England, chapter 63 (volume 6).

S. R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, page 1.

J. L. De Lolme, The English Constitution, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628. Assassination of Buckingham.

"While the struggle [over the Petition of Right] was going on, the popular hatred of Buckingham [the King's favourite, whose influence at court was supreme] showed itself in a brutal manner. In the streets of London, the Duke's physician, Dr. Lambe, was set upon by the mob, called witch, devil, and the Duke's conjuror, and absolutely beaten to death. The Council set inquiries on foot, but no individual was brought before it, and the rhyme went from mouth to mouth—'Let Charles and George do what they can, The Duke shall die like Doctor Lambe.' … Charles, shocked and grieved, took his friend in his own coach through London to see the ten ships which were being prepared at Deptford for the relief of Rochelle. It was reported that he was heard to say, 'George, there are some that wish that both these and thou might perish. But care not thou for them. We will both perish together if thou dost.' There must have been something strangely attractive about the man who won and kept the hearts of four personages so dissimilar as James and Charles of England, Anne of Austria, and William Laud. … In the meantime Rochelle held out." One attempt to relieve the beleaguered town had failed. Buckingham was to command in person the armament now in preparation for another attempt. "The fleet was at Portsmouth, and Buckingham went down thither in high spirits to take the command. The King came down to Sir Daniel Norton's house at Southwick. On the 23d of August Buckingham rose and 'cut a caper or two' before the barber dealt with his moustache and lovelocks. Then he was about to sit down to breakfast with a number of captains, and as he rose he received letters which made him believe that Rochelle had been relieved. He said he must tell the King instantly, but Soubise and the other refugees did not believe a word of it, and there was a good deal of disputing and gesticulation between them. He crossed a lobby, followed by the eager Frenchmen, and halted to take leave of an officer, Sir Thomas Fryar. Over the shoulder of this gentleman, as he bowed, a knife was thrust into Buckingham's breast. There was an effort to withdraw it; a cry 'The Villain!' and the great Duke, at 36 years old, was dead. The attendants at first thought the blow came from one of the noisy Frenchmen, and were falling on them." But a servant had seen the deed committed, and ran after the assassin, who was arrested and proved to be one John Felton, a soldier and a man of good family. He had suffered wrongs which apparently unhinged his mind.

{850}

C. M. Yonge, Cameos from English History, 6th series, chapter 17.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1642, chapter 65.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628-1632. Conquest and brief occupation of Canada and Nova Scotia.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1635.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629. The royal charter granted to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

See: MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629. The King's Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629. Tonnage and Poundage. The tumult in Parliament and the dissolution.

Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June, 1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd': there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February, 1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way into History. … A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there. Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' … the King hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day, while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to 'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had orders to the contrary; persisted in that;—and at last took to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days; and consider what to do! On the second day, which was Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them, who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr. Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles; 'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention, and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday, 2d of March, 1629."

T. Carlyle, Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: J. Forster, Sir John Eliot: a Biography, book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1630. Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, with their royal charter.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1631. Aid to Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

ENGLAND: A. D: 1632. Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

See NOVA SCOTIA (ACADIA): A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1632. The Palatine grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640. The Ecclesiastical despotism of Laud.

"When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one adversary remained—the people, each day more discontented with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne; it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other, evangelical faith and civil liberty. {851} The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to believe that he was not the only one who held his authority from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they were forbidden to preach. … Persecution followed and reached them everywhere. … Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful, magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely the details of new ceremonies—sometimes borrowed from Rome, sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists, every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority. … And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more like that of Rome. … Books were published to prove that the doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly tolerated. … The splendour and exclusive dominion of episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself, Laud proceeded to secure its independence. … The divine right of bishops became, in a short time, the official doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king himself. … By the time things had come to this pass, the people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."

F. P. Guizot, History of the English Revolution of 1640, book 2.

ALSO IN: D. Neal, History of the Puritans, volume 2, chapters 4-6.

G. G. Perry, History of the Church of England, chapters 13-16 (volume l).

P. Bayne, The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution, chapter 3.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637. Hostile measures against the Massachusetts Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637. Ship-money.

"The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. … All the promises of the king were violated without scruple or shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent, was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority. Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal times were made pretexts for harassing the people with exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit. Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the victims. … The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an inclement sky. … For the misgovernment of this disastrous period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him, or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. … But Wentworth—whoever names him without thinking of those harsh dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the majesty of an antique Jupiter! … Among the humbler tools of Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns along the coast. These measures, though they were direct violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our shores. {852} It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The nation well understood this; and from one end of England to the other, the public mind was strongly excited. Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But, though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between the people and the crown. … Towards the close of the year 1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this decision was to make the public indignation stronger and deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his reputation to a great height generally throughout the kingdom.'"

Lord Macaulay, Essays, volume 2 (Nugent's Memorials of Hampden).

ALSO IN: J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Hampden.

S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1642, chapter 74 (volume 7), and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);

ALSO

Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, pages 37-53, and 115.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640. Presbyterianism of the Puritan party. Rise of the independents.

"It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the constitution in church or state, or would square their actions by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."

J. Rushworth, Historical Collection, volume 2, 1355.

"These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the conscientious people of England. There was a sort of imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others. Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery. They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members, and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law, and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party, which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction, gradually arose the party of the independents. … Before the end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities, intellectual, military and civil."

W. Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2).

See, also, INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER), A. D. 1646 (MARCH), A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1639. The First Bishops' War in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640. The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War. The Scots Army in England.

"His Majesty having burnt Scotch paper Declarations 'by the hands of the common hangman,' and almost cut the Scotch Chancellor Loudon's head off, and being again resolute to chastise the rebel Scots with an Army, decides on summoning a Parliament for that end, there being no money attainable otherwise. To the great and glad astonishment of England; which, at one time, thought never to have seen another Parliament! Oliver Cromwell sat in this Parliament for Cambridge; recommended by Hampden, say some; not needing any recommendation in those Fen-countries, think others. Oliver's Colleague was a Thomas Meautys, Esq. This Parliament met, 13th April, 1640: it was by no means prompt enough with supplies against the rebel Scots; the king dismissed it in a huff, 5th May; after a Session of three weeks: Historians call it the Short Parliament. His Majesty decides on raising money and an Army 'by other methods': to which end Wentworth, now Earl Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had advised that course in the Council, did himself subscribe £20,000. Archbishop Laud had long ago seen 'a cloud rising' against the Four surplices at Allhallowtide; and now it is covering the whole sky in a most dismal and really thundery-looking manner. His Majesty by 'other methods,' commission of array, benevolence, forced loan, or how he could, got a kind of Army on foot, and set it marching out of the several Counties in the South towards the Scotch Border; but it was a most hopeless Army. The soldiers called the affair a Bishops' War; they mutinied against their officers, shot some of their officers: in various Towns on their march, if the Clergyman were reputed Puritan, they went and gave him three cheers; if of Surplice-tendency, they sometimes threw his furniture out of the window. {853} No fighting against poor Scotch Gospellers was to be hoped for from these men. Meanwhile the Scots, not to be behindhand, had raised a good Army of their own; and decided on going into England with it, this time, 'to present their grievances to the King's Majesty.' On the 20th of August, 1640, they cross the Tweed at Coldstream; Montrose wading in the van of them all. They wore uniform of hodden gray, with blue caps; and each man had a moderate haversack of oatmeal on his back. August 28th, the Scots force their way across the Tyne, at Newburn, some miles above Newcastle; the King's Army making small fight, most of them no fight; hurrying from Newcastle, and all town and country quarters, towards York again, where his Majesty and Strafford were. The Bishops' War was at an end. The Scots, striving to be gentle as doves in their behaviour, and publishing boundless brotherly Declarations to all the brethren that loved Christ's Gospel and God's Justice in England,—took possession of Newcastle next day; took possession gradually of all Northumberland and Durham,—and stayed there, in various towns and villages, about a year. The whole body of English Puritans looked upon them as their saviours. … His Majesty and Strafford, in a fine frenzy at the turn of affairs, found no refuge, except to summon a 'Council of Peers,' to enter upon a 'Treaty' with the Scots; and alas, at last, summon a New Parliament. Not to be helped in any way. … A Parliament was appointed for the 3d of November next;—whereupon London cheerfully lent £200,000; and the Treaty with the Scots at Ripon, 1st October, 1640, by and by transferred to London, went peaceably on at a very leisurely pace. The Scotch Army lay quartered at Newcastle, and over Northumberland and Durham, on an allowance of £850 a day; an Army indispensable for Puritan objects; no haste in finishing its Treaty. The English army lay across in Yorkshire; without allowance except from the casualties of the King's Exchequer; in a dissatisfied manner, and occasionally getting into 'Army-Plots.' This Parliament, which met on the 3d of November; 1640, has become very celebrated in History by the name of the 'Long Parliament.'"

T. Carlyle, Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 1: 1640.

ALSO IN: J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford.

S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1642, chapter 91-94.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 72-73 (volume 7).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640. Acquisition and settlement of Madras.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641. The Long Parliament and the beginning of its work. Impeachment and Execution of Strafford.

"The game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost his last stake. It is impossible to trace the mortifications and humiliations which this bad man now had to endure without a feeling of vindictive pleasure. His army was mutinous; his treasury was empty; his people clamoured for a Parliament; addresses and petitions against the government were presented. Strafford was for shooting those who presented them by martial law, but the king could not trust the soldiers. A great council of Peers was called at York, but the king would not trust even the Peers. He struggled, he evaded, he hesitated, he tried every shift rather than again face the representatives of his injured people. At length no shift was left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a Parliament. … On the 3d of November, 1640—a day to be long remembered—met that great Parliament, destined to every extreme of fortune—to empire and to servitude, to glory and to contempt;—at one time the sovereign of its sovereign, at another time the servant of its servants, and the tool of its tools. From the first day of its meeting the attendance was great, and the aspect of the members was that of men not disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution of the late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures would no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us that 'the same men who, six months before, were observed to be of very moderate tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied, talked now in another dialect both of kings and persons; and said that they must now be of another temper than they were the last Parliament.' The debt of vengeance was swollen by all the usury which had been accumulating during many years; and payment was made to the full. This memorable crisis called forth parliamentary abilities, such as England had never before seen. Among the most distinguished members of the House of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, Young, Harry Vane, Oliver St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men exercised a paramount influence over the legislature and the country—Pym and Hampden; and, by the universal consent of friends and enemies, the first place belonged to Hampden."

Lord Macaulay, Nugent's Memorials of Hampden (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).

"The resolute looks of the members as they gathered at Westminster contrasted with the hesitating words of the king, and each brought from borough or county a petition of grievances. Fresh petitions were brought every day by bands of citizens or farmers. Forty committees were appointed to examine and report on them, and their reports formed the grounds on which the Commons acted. One by one the illegal acts of the Tyranny were annulled. Prynne and his fellow 'martyrs' recalled from their prisons, entered London in triumph, amid the shouts of a great multitude who strewed laurel in their path. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High Commission, the irregular jurisdictions of the Council of the North, of the Duchy of Lancaster, the County of Chester, and a crowd of lesser tribunals, were summarily abolished. Ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgment in Hampden's case annulled. A statute declaring 'the ancient right of the subjects of this kingdom that no subsidy, custom, impost, or any charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or allies, without common consent of Parliament,' put an end forever to all pretensions to a right of arbitrary taxation on the part of the crown. A Triennial Bill enforced the Assembly of the Houses every three years, and bound the sheriff and citizens to proceed to election if the Royal writ failed to summon them. Charles protested, but gave way. He was forced to look helplessly on at the wreck of his Tyranny, for the Scotch army was still encamped in the north. … Meanwhile the Commons were dealing roughly with the agents of the Royal system. … {854} Windebank, the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, Finch, fled in terror over sea. Laud himself was flung into prison. … But even Laud, hateful as he was to all but the poor neighbours whose prayers his alms had won, was not the centre of so great and universal a hatred as the Earl of Strafford. Strafford's guilt was more than the guilt of a servile instrument of tyranny—it was the guilt of 'that grand apostate to the Commonwealth who,' in the terrible words which closed Lord Digby's invective, 'must not expect to be pardoned in this world till he be dispatched to the other.' He was conscious of his danger, but Charles forced him to attend the Court.' He came to London with the solemn assurance of his master that, "while there was a king in England, not a hair of Strafford's head should be touched by the Parliament." Immediately impeached of high treason by the Commons, and sent to the Tower, he received from the king a second and more solemn pledge, by letter, that, "upon the word of a king, you shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune." But the "word of a king" like Charles Stuart, had neither honor nor gratitude, nor a decent self respect behind it. He could be false to a friend as easily as to an enemy. When the Commons, fearing failure on the trial of their impeachment, resorted to a bill of attainder, Charles signed it with a little resistance, and Strafford went bravely and manfully to the block. "As the axe fell, the silence of the great multitude was broken by a universal shout of joy. The streets blazed with bonfires. The bells clashed out from every steeple."

J. R. Green, Short History of England, chapter 8, section 6.

The king "was as deeply pledged to Strafford as one man could be to another; he was as vitally concerned in saving the life and prolonging the service of incomparably his ablest servant as was ever any sovereign in the case of any minister; yet it is clear that for some days past, probably ever since the first signs of popular tumult began to manifest themselves, he had been wavering. Four days before the Bill passed the Lords, Strafford as is well known, entreated the king to assent to it. There is no reason to doubt the absolute sincerity with which, at the moment of its conception, the prisoner penned his famous letter from the Tower. That passionate chivalry of loyalty, which has never animated any human heart in equal intensity since Strafford's ceased to beat, inspires every line. … Charles turned distractedly from one adviser to another, not so much for counsel as for excuse. He did not want his judgment guided, but his conscience quieted; and his counsellors knew it. They had other reasons, too, for urging him to his dishonour. Panic seems to have seized upon them all. The only man who would not have quailed before the fury of the populace was the man himself whose life was trembling in the balance. The judges were summoned to declare their opinion, and replied, with an admirable choice of non-committing terms, that 'upon all that which their Lordships have voted to be proved the Earl of Strafford doth deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason.' Charles sent for the bishops, and the bishops, with the honourable exception of Juxon, informed him that he had two consciences,—a public and a private conscience,—and that 'his public conscience as a king might not only dispense with, but oblige him to do, that which was against his conscience as a man.' What passed between these two tenants in common of the royal breast during the whole of Sunday, May 9th, 1641, is within no earthly knowledge; but at some time on that day Charles's public conscience got the better of its private rival. He signed a commission for giving the royal assent to the Bill, and on Monday, May 10th, in the presence of a House scarcely able to credit the act of betrayal which was taking place before them, the Commissioners pronounced the fatal Le roi le veult over the enactment which condemned his Minister to the block. Charles, of course, might still have reprieved him by an exercise of the prerogative, but the fears which made him acquiesce in the sentence availed to prevent him from arresting its execution."

H. D. Traill, Lord Stafford, pages 195-198.

"It is a sorry office to plant the foot on a worm so crushed and writhing as the wretched king … [who abandoned Strafford] for it was one of the few crimes of which he was in the event thoroughly sensible, and friend has for once cooperated with foe in the steady application to it of the branding iron. There is in truth hardly any way of relieving the 'damned spot' of its intensity of hue even by distributing the concentrated infamy over other portions of Charles's character. … When we have convinced ourselves that this 'unthankful king' never really loved Strafford; that, as much as in him lay, he kept the dead Buckingham in his old privilege of mischief, by adopting his aversions and abiding by his spleenful purposes; that, in his refusals to award those increased honours for which his minister was a petitioner, on the avowed ground of the royal interest, may be discerned the petty triumph of one who dares not dispense with the services thrust upon him, but revenges himself by withholding their well-earned reward;—still does the blackness accumulate to baffle our efforts. The paltry tears he is said to have shed only burn that blackness in. If his after conduct indeed had been different, he might have availed himself of one excuse,—but that the man, who, in a few short months, proved that he could make so resolute a stand somewhere, should have judged this event no occasion for attempting it, is either a crowning infamy or an infinite consolation, according as we may judge wickedness or weakness to have preponderated in the constitution of Charles I. … As to Strafford's death, the remark that the people had no alternative, includes all that it is necessary to urge. The king's assurances of his intention to afford him no further opportunity of crime, could surely weigh nothing with men who had observed how an infinitely more disgusting minister of his will had only seemed to rise the higher in his master's estimation for the accumulated curses of the nation. Nothing but the knife of Felton could sever in that case the weak head and the wicked instrument, and it is to the honour of the adversaries of Strafford that they were earnest that their cause should vindicate itself completely, and look for no adventitious redress. Strafford had outraged the people—this was not denied. He was defended on the ground of those outrages not amounting to a treason against the king. For my own part, this defence appears to me decisive, looking at it in a technical view, and with our present settlement of evidence and treason. {855} But to concede that point, after the advances they had made, would have been in that day to concede all. It was to be shown that another power had claim to the loyalty and the service of Strafford—and if a claim, then a vengeance to exact for its neglect. And this was done. … One momentary emotion … escaped … [Strafford] when he was told to prepare for death. He asked if the king had indeed assented to the bill. Secretary Carleton answered in the affirmative; and Strafford, laying his hand on his heart, and raising his eyes to heaven, uttered the memorable words,—'Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.' Charles's conduct was indeed incredibly monstrous."

R. Browning, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (Eminent British Statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2, pages 403-406).

ALSO IN: J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford; Pym.

Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, book 3 (volume 1).

Lord Nugent, Memorials of Hampden. parts 5-6 (volumes 1-2).

Lady T. Lewis, Life of Lord Falkland.

The following are the Articles of Impeachment under which Strafford was tried and condemned:

"Articles of the Commons, assembled in Parliament, against Thomas Earl of Strafford, in Maintenance of their Accusation, whereby he stands charged with High Treason.

I. That he the said Thomas earl of Strafford hath traiterously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the realms of England and Ireland, and, instead thereof, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, against law, which he hath declared by traiterous words, counsels, and actions, and by giving his majesty advice, by force of arms, to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.

II. That he hath traiterously assumed to himself regal power over the lives, liberties of persons, lands, and goods of his majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and hath exercised the same tyrannically, to the subversion and undoing of many, both peers and others, of his majesty's liege people.

III. The better to inrich, and enable himself to go through with his traiterous designs, he hath detained a great part of his majesty's revenue, without giving any legal accounts; and hath taken great sums of money out of the exchequer, converting them to his own use, when his majesty was necessitated for his own urgent occasions, and his army had been a long time unpaid.

IV. That he hath traiterously abused the power and authority of his government, to the increasing, countenancing, and encouraging of Papists, that so he might settle a mutual dependence and confidence betwixt himself and that party, and by their help prosecute and accomplish his malicious and tyrannical designs.

V. That he hath maliciously endeavoured to stir up enmity and hostility between his majesty's subjects of England and those of Scotland.

VI. That he hath traiterously broken the great trust reposed in him by his majesty, of lieutenant general of his Army, by wilfully betraying divers of his majesty's subjects to death, his majesty's Army to a dishonourable defeat by the Scots at Newborne, and the town of Newcastle into their hands, to the end that, by effusion of blood, by dishonour, by so great a loss as of Newcastle, his majesty's realm of England might be engaged in a national and irreconcilable quarrel with the Scots.

VII. That, to preserve himself from being questioned for these and other his traiterous courses, he laboured to subvert the right of parliaments, and the ancient course of parliamentary proceedings, and, by false and malicious slanders, to incense his maj. against parliaments.—By which words, counsels, and actions, he hath traiterously, and contrary to his allegiance, laboured to alienate the hearts of the king's liege people from his maj. to set a division between them, and to ruin and destroy his majesty's kingdoms, for which they do impeach him of High Treason against our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity. And he the said earl of Strafford was lord deputy of Ireland, or lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lieutenant general of the Army there, under his majesty, and a sworn privy counsellor to his maj. for his kingdoms both of England and Ireland, and lord president of the North, during the time that all and every of the crimes and offences before set forth were done and committed; and he the said earl was lieutenant general of his majesty's Army in the North parts of England, during the time that the crimes and offences in the 5th and 6th Articles set forth were done and committed.—And the said commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other Accusation or Impeachment against the said earl, and also of replying to the Answer that he the said earl shall make unto the said Articles, or to any of them, and of offering proof also of the premises, or any of them, or of any other Accusation or Impeachment that shall be by them exhibited, as the case shall, according to the course of parliaments, require; and do pray that the said earl may be put to answer to all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examination, trial, and judgment, may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to law and justice."

Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, volume 2, pages 737-739.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (March-May). The Root and Branch Bill.

"A bill was brought in [March, 1641], known as the Restraining Bill, to deprive Bishops of their rights of voting in the House of Lords. The opposition it encountered in that House induced the Commons to follow it up [May 27] with a more vehement measure, 'for the utter abolition of Archbishops, Bishops. Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries and Canons,' a measure known by the title of the Root and Branch Bill. By the skill of the royal partisans, this bill was long delayed in Committee."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2 (volume 2), page 650.

ALSO IN: D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 2, book 2, chapter 3.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (October). Roundheads and Cavaliers. The birth of English parties.

"After ten months of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September, 1641, adjourned for a short vacation and the king visited Scotland. He with difficulty pacified that kingdom, by consenting not only to relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical reform, but even to pass, with a very bad grace, an act declaring that episcopacy was contrary to the word of God. The recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on which the houses met again is one of the most remarkable epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate existence of the two great parties which have ever since alternately governed the country. … {856} During the first months of the Long Parliament, the indignation excited by many years of lawless oppression was so strong and general that the House of Commons acted as one man. Abuse after abuse disappeared without a struggle. If a small minority of the representative body wished to retain the Star Chamber and the High Commission, that minority, overawed by the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be openly defended. At a later period the Royalists found it convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and their opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the king from dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the Triennial Act, the impeachment of the ministers, and the attainder of Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made war on the king. But no artifice could be more disingenuous. Everyone of those strong measures was actively promoted by the men who were afterwards foremost among the Cavaliers. No republican spoke of the long misgovernment of Charles more severely than Colepepper. The most remarkable speech in favour of the Triennial Bill was made by Digby. The impeachment of the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland. The demand that the Lord Lieutenant should be kept close prisoner was made at the bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law attainting Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the majority, but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who entertained a scruple about inflicting death by a retrospective enactment thought it necessary to express the utmost abhorrence of Strafford's character and administration. But under this apparent concord a great schism was latent; and when, in October 1641, the Parliament reassembled after a short recess, two hostile parties, essentially the same with those which, under different names, have ever since contended, and are still contending, for the direction of public affairs, appeared confronting each other. During some years they were designated as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were subsequently called Tories and Whigs; nor does it seem that these appellations are likely soon to become obsolete."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 1.

It was not until some months later, however, that the name of Roundheads was applied to the defenders of popular rights by their royalist adversaries.

See ROUNDHEADS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (November). The Grand Remonstrance.

Early in November, 1641, the king being in Scotland, and news of the insurrection in Ireland having just reached London, the party of Pym, Hampden, and Cromwell "resolved on a great pitched battle between them and the opposition, which should try their relative strengths before the king's return; and they chose to fight this battle over a vast document, which they entitled 'A Declaration and Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom,' but which has come to be known since as The Grand Remonstrance. … The notion of a great general document which, under the name of 'A Remonstrance,' should present to the king in one view a survey of the principal evils that had crept into the kingdom in his own and preceding reigns, with a detection of their causes, and a specification of the remedies, had more than once been before the Commons. It had been first mooted by Lord Digby while the Parliament was not a week old. Again and again set aside for more immediate work, it had recurred to the leaders of the Movement party, just before the king's departure for Scotland, as likely to afford the broad battle-ground with the opposition then becoming desirable. 'A Remonstrance to be made, how we found the Kingdom and the Church, and how the state of it now stands,' such was the description of the then intended document (August 7). The document had doubtless been in rehearsal through the Recess, for on the 8th of November the rough draft of it was presented to the House and read at the clerk's table. When we say that the document in its final form occupies thirteen folio pages of rather close print in Rushworth, and consists of a preamble followed by 206 articles or paragraphs duly numbered, one can conceive what a task the reading of even the first draft of it must have been, and through what a storm of successive debates over proposed amendments and additions it reached completeness. There had been no such debates yet in the Parliament."