Henry Carey, Viscount Falkland; Lord Deputy of Ireland from 1625 to 1632. He died 1633.

Edward Conway, Viscount Conway, Secretary of State from 1622; afterwards President of the Council. He died January 3, 1630–1. Edward Barret, Baron Newburgh, in Fifeshire, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; one of the few Englishmen on whom Charles, in pursuance of his policy for uniting the institutions of the two kingdoms, bestowed Scotch titles. He had risen in office under James; had been raised to the peerage in 1627, and been made a Privy Councillor July 1627. He had held for a time the office of Chancellor and Under-Treasurer of the Exchequer.

Sir Francis Cottington (made Baron Cottington of Hanworth, July 1631), Chancellor of the Exchequer and (after 1630) Master of the Wards in addition. He had been secretary to Charles as prince; had accompanied him to Spain; had been disgraced by Buckingham's influence after Charles became King; but had since recovered favor.

Sir Thomas Edmonds, Treasurer of the Household since 1618.

Sir Henry Vane, senior (father of the more celebrated Sir Henry Vane); Comptroller of the Household.

Sir Julius Cæsar, Master of the Rolls since 1614; died 1636.

Sir Humphrey May, Vice-Chamberlain to the King; died 1630.

Sir Robert Naunton, Master of the Court of Wards till his death in 1630, when Cottington succeeded him.

Dudley Carleton, Viscount Dorchester, Vice-Chamberlain of the Household

till 1629, and then successor of Viscount Conway as Secretary of State. He died Feb. 1631-2; and, in June 1632, the office of Secretary was conferred on Sir Francis Windebanke, an old and special friend of Laud, and educated at the same College.

Sir John Coke, the other Secretary of State. Thomas, Viscount Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford. This great man, by inheritance Sir Thomas Wentworth, Baronet, of WentworthWoodhouse, Yorkshire, had recently made his memorable defection to the King's side, after having led the popular cause in Parliament. He had been immediately (July 22, 1628) made Baron Wentworth, of Newmarch and Oversley; and again (Dec. 1628) created Viscount, and sworn of the Privy Council. As he was then appointed Lord President of the Council in the North, or, in other words, Viceroy of all England, north of the Trent, his head-quarters for the present were at York, and his attendance at the Privy Council could be but occasional. He was (1629) in his thirty-seventh year.

James, Marquis, and afterwards Duke, of Hamilton. This Scottish nobleman and kinsman of the King (born in 1606, and therefore now in the first flush of youth) was also but commencing his eventful career. After being educated, as Earl of Arran, at Oxford, he had succeeded his father as Marquis in 1625, and had immediately become one of the hopes of the court - Knight of the Garter, Gentleman of the Bedchamber, Privy Councillor of both Kingdoms, and Master of Horse (1628).

It was on the King's own solicitation that he consented to leave his native Clydesdale and the wild splendors of his hereditary Isle of Arran, and to enter into the service of the state. Two lines of service were already marked out for him. In the first place, it was through him, as the greatest of the Scottish nobles, that the King hoped to manage the affairs of Scotland. In the second place, it was resolved (1629) that what assistance Charles could give to the Swedish hero, Gustavus Adolphus, in his war in behalf of continental Protestantism (an enterprise involving the recovery of the Palatinate for Charles's brave sister, the Queen of Bohemia), should be given in the shape of a volunteer expedition under the Marquis of Hamilton. Accordingly, he was empowered to raise an army of 6,000 men, chiefly Scots; with this army he sailed for the continent, July 1631; and he remained abroad in the service of Gustavus till Sept. 1632.1

In this body of about five and thirty men,—some of them ecclesiastics, some hereditary legislators or great nobles, and the rest men of business who had risen to rank and eminence through the profession of the law, was vested, under the King, from 1628-9 onwards, the supreme government of England. Whatever laws were now passed, or other measures adopted, binding the subjects of the English realm, were framed by this body sitting in council in Westminster, or, in certain cases, by a select portion of them consulted in a more private manner by the King, and were issued (now that there were no Parliaments) as proclamations, royal injunctions, orders in council, and the like. Of course, all the members of the body were not equally active or equally powerful. The attendance of some at the council-meetings was exceptional, and depended on their chancing to be at court; and the usual number present at a full council, seems to have been from fifteen to twenty. Even of those who regularly attended, some were rather listeners or clerks than actual ministers. The working chiefs of the ministry seem to

1 The preparation of this list of Privy Councillors from 1628--9 to 1632, has been a less easy matter than, in these days of directories and almanacs, it might be supposed; nor can I certify that it is absolutely complete or exact. The names have been collected from documents in Rymer, Rushworth, etc., and the biographical particulars from Clarendon and other sources. Since the list was made out, however, I have seen in the State Paper Office a document, dated July 12, 1629, professing to be a list (drawn up, I fancy, for an official purpose) of the "Lords and others of his Majesty's most Hon. Privy Council," at that date. The list, which includes forty names, confirms mine very satisfactorily; but

it contains several names not in mine, and omits one or two which are in mine. The additional names are, with two exceptions, those of Scotch nobles and officials, who as they resided chiefly in Scotland, can have been but nominal members of the Privy Council, so far as England was concerned. I might, however, have inserted that of Sir William Alexander (Earl of Sterling), Secretary of State for Scotland, as he seems to have conducted the Scotch secretaryship chiefly in London. Names in my list and not in the other, are those of Harsnet, Archbishop of York, Wentworth, and the Duke of Hamilton.

have been Laud, Neile, the Lord Keeper Coventry, the Lord Treasurer Weston, Sir Francis Cottington, and the Earls of Manchester, Arundel, Holland, and Dorset. Moreover, the King himself took pleasure in business, and in letting it be known that he had the reins in his own hands.1

In all civil business the ecclesiastical members of the Council seem to have been quite as active and influential as the lay lords. Laud, in particular, from his first admission, took a leading share in all the discussions and proceedings, and kept the Council in a continual fidget; such being the heat of his temper and the natural sharpness of his tongue that "he could not," says Clarendon, "debate anything without some commotion, even when the argument was not of moment, nor bear contradiction in debate." The lay lords, especially Weston, resented this; and it was one of Cottington's great amusements to lead Laud on at the Council Board so as to make him lose his temper, and say or do something ridiculous. "This he chose to do most," says Clarendon, "when the King was present, and then he (Cottington) would dine with him (Laud) the next day." The truth is, Laud and his ecclesiastical colleagues, Harsnet and Neile, seem to have been of a party in the Council more extreme and rigorous in their notions of prerogative, and more bent on harsh courses of civil procedure than the majority of the lay lords, and especially than the lawyers among them. A curious indication of the respective degrees of severity of the various members of Council is furnished by a record of their several votes in Star-chamber in May 1629, on the question of the amount of fine to be inflicted on Richard Chambers, a merchant of London, who, having had a parcel of silk-grogram goods seized by the custom-house officers, and having been summoned before the Council for obstinacy in the matter of tonnage and poundage, had ventured to say, even in their august presence, that "the merchants in England were more wrung and screwed than those of Turkey." The sum fixed on was £2,000; but Laud and Neile had voted with Weston, Arundel, Dorset, and Suffolk for a higher sum. Chambers refused to pay, and wrote on the paper of apology and submission, which was presented to him for signature, that he "utterly abhorred

1 Clarendon (I. 52) thinks the Council was too numerous, or had too many ciphers in it. There had been some such talk as early as Charles's accession; when (as I learn from the title of a paper, of date April 23, 1625, given in the published Calendar of State Papers) there was a rumor at Court of the existence of "a selected or Cabinet Council,

whereunto none are admitted but the Duke of Buckingham, the Lords Treasurer and Chamberlain, Lord Brooke and Lord Conway." This Cabinet Council had doubtless perpetuated itself more or less firmly. With respect to the forms and regulations of the more general Council, see a very interesting state paper published in the Athenæum of Sept. 11, 1858.

and detested" its contents, and "never, till death, would acknowledge any part" of them. He was kept in prison for several years.

It was part of Laud's theoretical system, as we have seen, that the right of ecclesiastical legislation belonged to a national synod or convocation, with the bishops presiding. Now, however, that there were no meetings of the Convocation or ecclesiastical Parliament, any more than of the secular Parliament, the only method that remained (and he probably learned to prefer it) was for himself, either alone, or in conjunction with his colleagues, Neile and Harsnet, to recommend to the King such measures as, without amounting to actual innovation in doctrine or canon, should yet. produce effects desired; and, having procured for these measures the King's consent, to see them issued as orders in Council, or royal declarations and proclamations. This, accordingly, he did. On the 30th of December, 1629, for example, there were issued in the King's name the following important “Instructions to the two Archbishops concerning certain orders to be observed and put in execution by the several Bishops," these instructions being framed with but slight variations on "Considerations for the better settling of the Church Government," presented to the King in draft by Laud, or by Laud and Harsnet, in the preceding March.3

1 Rushworth, I. 671-2.

2 Convocation was originally, it is supposed, the assembly of the clergy in the form of a Parliament-the higher clergy personally, the inferior clergy by their proctors or deputies for the purpose of assessing themselves in taxes, at a time when they claimed exemption from the general taxation of the country as settled in the secular Parliament. The assembly, divided into the two provincial synods of Canterbury and York, was convened by the King's writ sent to the two Archbishops, and by them downwards, at the commencement of every new Parliament. As on such occasions the clergy took the opportunity of discussing ecclesiastical questions, Convocation became (if it had not always been) the ecclesiastical legislative body. At the Reformation, its functions in this respect were greatly limited; but it still continued to meet with every new Parliament; and, several times, with the consent of the Crown, it issued new bodies of canons, which the Crown ratified as ecclesiastical law. Such were the famous canons of 1603-4; which, however, never having been ratified by Parliament, but only by the King, have been declared by the courts of law not to be binding on the English laity, but only on the clergy. As Convocation met only when Parliament met,

and was in fact a necessary though independent portion of Parliament considered in its totality, the disuse of Parliaments from 1628-9 onwards to 1640 led to the abeyance of Convocation for the same period - consequently to the absence during that period of such modified control over Laud and the other bishops as might have resulted from the synodical criticism of the body of the clergy. In 1665, the clergy consented to be taxed, with other classes of the community, by the general Parliament — acquiring, in equivalent, the right of voting for knights of the shires; since which time, accordingly, Convocation has been a nullity. It is still convened at the opening of every new Parliament; the two Houses meet in St. Paul's and go through certain formalities; but the moment any real business is attempted, the royal prorogation stops it.

3 The "Considerations" are given from Laud's paper by Rushworth, II. 7; the actual "Instructions" based on them are given by Rushworth, II. 30, and more fully in Wharton's Laud, pp. 517, 518; and it is interesting to compare the two documents. In his account of his trial Laud disclaims the sole authorship both of the "Considerations" and "Instructions" (see Wharton's Laud, 356). "My copy of Considerations," he says, "came

“I. That the Lords the Bishops be commanded to their several sees to keep residents, excepting those which are in necessary attendance at Court.

"II. That none of them reside upon his land or lease that he hath purchased, nor on his Commendam [i. e. living held by him in addition to his bishopric], if he should have any, but in one of the episcopal houses, if he have any. And that he waste not the woods where any are left.

"III. That they give in charge in their triennial visitations and all other convenient times, both by themselves and the archdeacons, that the Declaration for the settling all questions in difference be strictly observed by all parties.

"IV. That there be a special care taken by them all that the ordinations be solemn, and not of unworthy persons.

"V. That they take great care concerning the Lecturers, in these special directions:- [The wording of this Instruction in Laud's (or Harsnet's) draft is much fiercer:-That a special care be had over the Lecturers in every diocese, which, by reason of their pay, are the people's creatures, and blow the bellows of their sedition; for the abating of whose power, these ways may be taken,]:

"1. That in all parishes the afternoon sermons may be turned into catechising by questions and answers, when and wheresoever there is no great cause apparent to break this ancient and profitable order.

"2. That every Bishop ordain in his diocese that every lecturer do read Divine Service, according to the Liturgy printed by authority, in his surplice and hood, before the lecture.

"3. That, where a lecture is set up in a market-town, it may be read by a company of grave and orthodox divines near adjoining, and in the same diocese; and that they preach in gowns and not in cloaks, as too many do use.

"4. That, if a corporation maintain a single lecturer, he be not suffered to preach till he profess his willingness to take upon him a living with cure of souls within that corporation; and that he actually take such benefice or cure as soon as it shall be fairly procured for him. “VI. That the Bishops do countenance and encourage the grave and orthodox divines of their clergy; and that they use means by some of their clergy that

from Archbishop Harsnet;" and again, "The King's Instructions under these Considerations are under Mr. Baker's hand, who was secretary to my predecessor (i. e. to Archbishop Abbot), and they were sent to me to make exceptions to them, if I knew any, in regard to the ministers of London, whereof I was then Bishop, and by this *** 'tis manifest that this account was begun before my time. I should have been glad of the honor had it begun in mine." In these explanations, Laud must be understood as using his legal right as an accused person to make no unnecessary admissions hurtful to himself, and even to

avail himself of technical defences. He does not assert that, though Harsnet had a hand in the Considerations, they did not emanate from him (Laud); and the words "before my time," in reference to the Instructions, can mean only that they were issued before his elevation to the Archbishopric in 1633, and not that they may not have been advised by him in his prior condition as Bishop of London, i. e. virtually sent by him as Crownminister, to Abbot as Archbishop, to descend upon himself again, as Bishop, from that primate.