[1644 A.D.]

PARLIAMENTARY RIGOUR

There was nothing in which the sufferings caused by a state of revolution were more evident than in the finances, and the parliament went, in this respect, far beyond everything that the king had formerly ventured. Clarendoni therefore exclaims, "Before the war, two subsidies, £150,000, were said to be an enormous sum; now £1,742,936 have been imposed." So early as November, 1642, the parliament demanded a payment of the twentieth part of the value of estates. The persons appointed to levy this tax were authorised by the law to value, to break open chests and trunks, to take away and sell, to imprison those who refused payment so long as they thought proper, and remove their families from London and vicinity. However, as notwithstanding such rigorous measures, this mode of direct taxation did not produce enough, heavy taxes on consumption were imposed in May 1643, and gradually extended and augmented on beer, wine, brandy, cider, tobacco, sugar, meat, salt, saffron, starch, alum, hops, drugs, paper, leather, glass, silks, etc.1 At the same time interest at eight per cent. was given upon loans, the estates of many Catholics and bishops were sold, and the property of all clergymen who opposed the new laws of the church was sequestrated. Lastly, every one who had directly or indirectly assisted the royalists, carried on their business for them, received them into their houses, or gone to theirs, was branded with the name of delinquent, and by way of punishment compelled to pay the value of two years of his income.

Several pamphlets in favor of the king, did not fail to produce an effect, so that the parliament, finding that the liberty of the press was disadvantageous to it, passed laws instituting a rigid censorship, caused warehouses to be searched, presses to be broken to pieces, printers, sellers, and bookbinders to be imprisoned. In a similar manner, Montagu was expelled from the house of commons, and imprisoned, because he would not take an oath to live and die with the earl of Essex; for it appeared to the house (according to the journals) to be a great crime that a member would not be guided by the declarations of others, but by his own judgment, whereby it was assumed that the conviction of everybody must agree with that of the parliament. This, however, was so far from being the case, that many secret associations against it, for instance, that of Waller, were discovered, which led to punishments and new oaths. Nay, the two Hothams, father and son, who had before so greatly insulted the king, had been induced, by repentance or ambition, to enter into negotiations with him, as we have seen, for which they had been arrested, and, in the sequel, were executed.y

THE SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE AND THE NEW MODEL

The late successes of the king were attributed to the want of harmony among the parliamentary generals. Waller had been from the first a rival of Essex, and Manchester and Cromwell, his second in command, had opposite views and feelings. The religious differences of Presbyterian and Independent had now extended to the army also; Cromwell was at the head of the latter party, Manchester and Waller belonged to the former, while Essex preferred the Episcopalian church. Further, both he and Manchester wished to preserve the constitution in the state, while Cromwell desired a republic. It was therefore suspected, and not without reason, that neither of these noblemen With the fifth part of what was afterwards raised by taxation," says Clarendon, “the king and the state would have been saved.”

[1644 A.D.]

was inclined to weaken the king too much. The affair of Donnington Castle brought the parties who had been for some time menacing each other to issue. Cromwell, when called on in the house of commons to state what he knew of it, accused Manchester of an averseness to ending the war by the sword, and of thinking that the king was now low enough for a peace to be made.

Next day Manchester took notice of this in the lords, and at his desire a day being fixed for the purpose, he gave his account of the Donnington affair, laying the chief blame on Cromwell. He also stated some speeches of Cromwell, proving him to be hostile to the peerage, and to the amity between England and Scotland; such as his saying that it would never be well with England till the earl of Manchester were plain Mr. Montagu, that the Scots had crossed the Tweed only to establish presbytery, and that in that cause he would as soon fight against them as the king. He added, that it was Cromwell's design to form an army of sectaries who might dictate to both king and parliament. The commons appointed a committee to inquire if this accusation of one of their members in the other house were not a breach of privilege. Meantime some of the Presbyterian party and the Scottish commissioners met at Essex House, and sending for the two lawyers Whitelocke and Maynard, took their opinion on the subject of accusing Cromwell as an incendiary between the two nations. The lawyers, however, being of opinion that the evidence was not sufficient, the plan was abandoned.

On the 9th of December the commons resolved themselves into a committee to consider the condition of the kingdom with regard to the war. After a long silence Cromwell rose and recommended that instead of an inquiry they should devise some general remedy of the evils. The next speaker said that the fault lay in the commands being divided. A third proposed that no member of either house should hold any civil or military command during the war. This was supported by Vane and opposed by Whitelocke, Holles, and others. An ordinance to this effect, however, passed the commons (21st), a vain attempt having been made to have the earl of Essex excepted. In the lords it met with much opposition; for, as they justly objected, it would exclude their entire order from all offices of trust and honour. They accordingly rejected it (Jan. 13, 1645).

Another project which was going on at the same time, was the "new model" of the army. On the 21st the names of the principal officers of it were put to the vote in the commons. Sir Thomas Fairfax was named commander-inchief, Skippon major-general; twenty-four colonels were appointed, but nothing was said as to the post of lieutenant-general. The lords passed the ordinance for the new model (Feb. 15); and an ordinance similar to the one they had rejected, but only requiring members to lay down the offices which they held, and being silent as to their reappointment, was sent up to them. This "Self-Denying Ordinance" was passed on the 3rd of April, Essex, Manchester and Denbigh having laid down their commands the day before." While one party extolled this law as highly necessary and wise, as a most noble action, nay, as an unexampled and wonderful event, a second party declared that it was the most rash, dangerous, and unjust resolution that any parliament had ever passed.

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRIES AND LAUD'S EXECUTION (1645 A.D.)

As by Charles' giving up the right to dissolve it, all the power must fall into its hands, the parliament by the Self-Denying Ordinance in truth sacri

['The word "ordinance though it had been used in mediæval times of a royal edict without parliamentary assent, was now employed for a parliamentary act without royal assent.]

[1644 A.D.] ficed itself, and created in the army a power which would be the greater and more independent, because Fairfax and Cromwell obtained the right of directing the levies of recruits, and of appointing all the officers, even the colonels. For the confirmation of everything done by them, which the parliament had reserved to itself, soon became a mere formality. This remarkable turn and change, with respect to the temporal power and predominance, cannot be fully comprehended till we examine the course of ecclesiastical and religious affairs. The English revolution differs from most others, and is doubly interesting and instructive, from the circumstance that it is by no means external force which excites, impels, and decides; but that thoughts everywhere manifest themselves, and all has a reference to ideas, and this not merely in the temporal matters of state and policy, but also in spiritual affairs of doctrine and church discipline. Thus, we find almost all possible gradations, from ultra royalists and ultra Catholics, to unbridled anarchists and believers in the millennium; and each of these gradations (so blind are vanity and arrogance) was considered by its advocates as absolutely true, of eternal duration, while they rejected and condemned whatever differed from it in however trifling a degree. They did not see, they did not even presage, that as the rapid revolution of things drove them from the lowest depression to the greatest elevation, from oppression to power, they must incessantly culminate and sink again.

The struggle between Catholics and Protestants in general appeared to both parties to be long since ended in theory, and the use of violence towards those who persevered in wilful blindness was not only permitted, but justified. Nay, setting aside all other reasons, toleration was impossible, because the party which granted it, while the other refused, would always have the disadvantage. The contest against the Catholics was followed by that against the Episcopal constitution. Without regard to the above mentioned equivocal expression in the treaty with the Scotch, it was rejected in October, 1643, and everything determined according to the opinions of the Puritanical majority of the house of commons. Accordingly, a law was passed that all paintings, statues, stone altars, lattice work, chandeliers, fonts, crosses, chalices, organs, ornamental floors and windows, should be removed from the churches. Naturally enough, the populace went beyond the directions of the violent legislators, and an indiscriminate destruction of images succeeded, in which, especially the tombs of bishops and kings, nay, all historical monuments placed in the sanctuaries of religion, were treated as worthy of destruction. The beards, noses, fingers, and arms of the statues were broken off, crowns torn away, organs demolished and the pipes melted into bullets, windows broken, inscriptions effaced, and ornamented pavements pulled up.

The parliament, though informed of these proceedings, confirmed, on the 9th of May, 1644, the former law, and merely added that no monument of a king, prince, or nobleman should be destroyed, unless he had passed for a saint. In order to root out every particle of foreign superstition, the pretended purifiers of religion ran into a Mohammedan hatred of art, and an ignorant incredible abhorrence of what was holy and consecrated. Besides this, all the theatres were closed, the Book of Sports treating of amusements permitted on Sunday was burnt by the hangman, all travelling on that day declared to be impious, and the figure of the cross no longer tolerated, even in the signs of public houses. The sermons often lasted from nine o'clock in the morning till four in the afternoon, or far longer than the human mind is capable of forming an uninterrupted series of thought, or of receiving it, so that we need not doubt the correctness of the observation that these discourses were often absurd and always tiresome; and as every extreme generally pro

[1645 A.D.]

duces its contrary, we find, with this intolerant austerity, the most scandalous excesses committed by the image-breakers in consecrated places.

Meantime the parliament had, as we have seen, solemnly sworn to the covenant, at Westminster, on the 25th of September, 1643, and required the same oath from every person in office, and every clergyman in the kingdom. Collier is perhaps right when he affirms that the Presbyterians expelled far more at this time than the Papists had done under Mary, and the bishops under Elizabeth. All this was, of course, recommended and approved from the pulpit. Thus, Stephen Marshall said in a sermon, "What soldier's heart is not appalled at the thought of piercing little children in a conquered city or of holding them up by the legs and dashing their heads against the wall. But if this work is done to avenge God's church (the Presbyterians) upon Babylon (the Church of England), happy is he that taketh the little ones and dasheth them against the stones." This increased intolerance was manifested towards no individual with more violence than Archbishop Laud, who had been imprisoned for three years, and was almost forgotten. "Poor Canterbury," so Baillie,bb the Scotch clergyman, writes, "is so contemptible that nobody thinks of him; he was only a ring in Strafford's ear." Yet, chiefly to please the Scotch, the proceedings against the old bishop were now resumed by the parliament, and very unjustly placed under the direction of his old adversary Prynne. His enemies now possessed the power (as he formerly had), and took care to exercise it. The main accusation, that he had attempted to overthrow the laws, religion, and the rights of parliament, was divided into numerous branches, which we have not space to detail.

Laud defended himself with boldness, acuteness, and wit; nay, he spoke rather as an accuser, than submissively and asking favour. Though everything was represented in the most unfavourable light, the judges declared, on the 17th of December, 1644, that they could not find the archbishop guilty of treason, and left the decision to the house of lords. The latter communicated the difficulty that had arisen to the lower house, which answered: That there was in the first place, treason against the king, on which the inferior tribunals decide according to the law; secondly, treason against the kingdom on which the parliament decided. However, as in the case of Strafford's trial, the form of the proceeding was changed into a bill of attainder, which was passed on the 4th of January, 1645, by the house of lords; and with much difficulty his petition was acceded to that he might not be hanged and quartered, but only beheaded. A pardon granted to the archbishop by the king, dated the 12th of April, 1643, was over-ruled and rejected.

On the 10th of January, 1645, Laud ascended the scaffold, and acknowledged that he was a great sinner, but that he had never endeavoured to subvert the laws of the realm, or change the Protestant religion, and that he had not done anything deserving death, according to the laws of the kingdom. He thanked God for suffering him to die for his honour; prayed for the happiness of the king, the restoration of the church to truth, peace, and prosperity; for the parliament according to its ancient and just power; and that the unhappy and distracted nation might penitently cease from war and bloodshed, and enjoy its hereditary rights and lawful liberties. "Now," said he, "the blind lead the blind, and all will fall into the ditch. As others would not honour the images which the king set up, I will not worship the vain phantoms which the people invent, nor will I abandon the temple and the truth of God to follow the bleating of Jeroboam's calves in Dan and Bethel. I am no enemy to parliaments, and acknowledge their utility; but corruptio optimi est pessima. For my part, I freely forgive everybody." Laud submitted to the fatal

[1645 A.D.]

stroke with courage and composure. Immediately before him, was executed Hotham, who had first accused Laud in parliament.

The trial and the condemnation of Laud are much less to be excused than that of the dangerous and powerful Lord Strafford; for the single points laid to his charge appear to be mere trifles, and the vague reproach of overthrowing the constitution, in church and state, he might have flung back with double force upon his accusers. They, besides, never attended the proceedings and examination of the witnesses, but deciding in the lower house entirely after the representations of their counsel; and of the lords, there were never more than fourteen present at the trial; and at the passing of the sentence only twelve, or, as others say, only seven. Except the speaker, not a single member had attended the trial from the beginning to the end. That an old man, seventy-two years of age, who was wholly powerless, was brought to the scaffold, after the overthrow of the Episcopal system, and four years' imprisonment, with the violation of so many legal forms, and without any motives of political necessity, was a proof of the blind passion of the pretended defenders of liberty, justice, and law. They could not, or would not see, what disgrace they prepared for their own reputation, and what honour for the archbishop, by thus raising him to the dignity of a martyr.

(1612-1680)

Loud complaints of this and other despotic acts being made, the parliament, following the course which it had blamed in its opponents, again

made the censorship of the press more severe; but was not able thereby to restrain its excesses, much less to repress arbitrary proceedings of another kind.

THE WARRING CREEDS AND INTOLERANCE

On the 4th of January, 1645, a few days before the execution of Laud, it had been resolved by the assembly of divines (in session since July 1, 1643) that the book of common prayer should be laid aside; the form of divine worship hitherto observed should be abolished; and a new directory, which had been framed by the assembly of divines, a creed, a catechism, and a scheme of a Presbyterian constitution of the church, were drawn up. In the creed all was on strict Calvinistic principles, and peculiar stress was laid on the doctrine of predestination. It was left to a future general assembly to decide a question which was stated to be of the highest importance, namely, whether there had been at Ephesus a classical presbytery, and in Jerusalem a simple congregation. Many of the old forms and arrangements, such as crosses, altars, and confessions of the sick, were abolished. "Nobody shall