PYM'S ATTACK ON CHARLES'S GOVERNMENT. of Sports, for not removing the Communion table to the east end, for not coming to the rails to receive the Sacrament, for preaching on Sunday afternoons instead of catechising, and even for using other questions than those which were to be found in the authorised Catechism. Finally, there had been abuse in the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that to grant Pym's demands would have broken up the Church system of Charles and Laud. But though some of the more extreme ceremonial forms would undoubtedly have been proscribed, the whole tone of his speech was in favour of a liberal and comprehensive treatment of the Church question. The unnecessary restrictions upon conscientious religion held far the largest space in his argument. Even when Pym spoke of practices to which he took objection, it was the compulsion even more than the practices which he held up to animadversion. 315 CHAP. 1640. April 17. grievances. Finally, came the long enumeration of the poli- The civil tical grievances. The enforcement of tonnage and poundage, and impositions without a Parliamentary grant, which had been the subject of contention in preceding Parliaments, was naturally placed first. Pym distinctly asserted that in attacking these he had no wish to diminish the King's profit, but merely to establish the right in Parliament. Then came the grievances of the past eleven years-the enhancement of the customs by the new book of rates, the compositions for knighthood, the monopolies in the hands of the new companies, the enforcement of ship money, the enlargement of the forests, the appeal to obsolete statutes against nuisances in order to fill the exchequer, whilst no attempt was made to abate the nuisances themselves; and last of all, those VII. 1640. April 17. way CHAP. military charges which were now for the first time treated as a grievance. Pym gave a history of the in which these last charges had grown. Coat and conduct money, or the expenses of clothing newly raised levies, and of taking them to the place of rendezvous had originally been borne by the Crown. Elizabeth in her need had sometimes asked the counties to advance the money till she was able to repay it. By degrees the exception had become the rule, whilst the engagement to repay the advance had ceased to be observed. New customs were already springing up. Not only were men pressed against their will, but the counties were compelled to furnish public magazines for powder and munitions, to pay certain officers, and to provide horses and carts for the King's service without any remuneration what ever. As Pym knew, the strength of the King's authority lay in his being able to fall back upon the Courts of Law. As yet no one was prepared to strike at the root of the evil. Pym contented himself with protesting against 'extrajudicial declarations of judges,' made without hearing counsel on the point at issue, and against the employment of the Privy Council and the Star Chamber in protecting monopolists. Many of the clergy had thrust themselves forward to undertake the defence of unconstitutional power. was now the high way to preferment' to preach that there was Divine anthority for an absolute power in the King' to do what he would with the persons and goods of Englishmen.' Dr. Mainwaring had been condemned in the last Parliament for this offence, and he had now leapt into a Bishop's chair.' 6 It Then, returning to the point from which he STRENGTH OF PYM'S POSITION. 317 VII. 1640. started, Pym pointed to the source of all other griev- CHAP. ances in the long intromission of Parliaments, contrary to the two statutes yet in force, whereby it is appointed there should be Parliaments once in the The intr year.' April 17. mission of Parlia ments. How then was the mischief to be remedied? The Here Pym refused to follow Grimston. He refrained remedy. from requiring that any individual minister should be called to account. Let them ask the Lords to join in searching out the causes and remedies of these insupportable grievances,' and in petitioning the King for redress.1 Such a speech, so decisive and yet so moderate, carried the House with it. It laid down the lines within which, under altered conditions, the Long Parliament afterwards moved. It gave no offence to the hesitating and timid, as Eliot had given offence by summoning the King's officers to the bar, and by his wild attack upon Weston. It seemed as if both Houses had agreed to follow Pym. The next day the Lords called in question the appointment of Mainwaring to a Bishopric, whilst the Commons placed Grimston in the chair of a Committee of the whole House, sent for the records of the case of Eliot and his fellow-prisoners, and appointed a Select 1 I cannot agree with Ranke in holding that the draft in the State Paper Office is more accurate than that given by Rushworth. It leaves out all about the privileges of Parliament. The printed speech in the King's Pamphlets, used by Mr. Forster, is not perhaps to be taken as being literally Pym's as it was spoken. There was no thorough system of shorthand in those days. But it has every characteristic of Pym, and most probably was corrected by him, or by some one present on the occasion of its delivery, and I have quoted from it as from something better than " a later amplification." The report given in Rushw. iii. 21, is, as Mr. Forster has pointed out, another report of this speech. But Mr. Forster was wrong in saying that Pym did not speak on Nov. 7. April 18. Proceed ings in both Houses. CHAP. V 1640. April 18. The three estates of Committee to draw up a narrative of the proceedings against them. Before the House rose, it had ordered that the records of the ship-money case should also be brought before it. The feeling against the Bishops was perhaps even the realm. stronger in the Lords than in the Commons. There was more of personal jealousy there, as there had been among the nobility of Scotland. It was in the House of Lords that, for the first time since the days of Lollardism, the old constitutional doctrine, that lay peers, the clergy, and the. Commons were the three estates of the realm was brought in question. The Bishops were distinctly told that the three estates were the King, the Barons, and the Commons. "The Bishops then, it was said, would make four estates or exclude the King."1 The King to be an estate. April 21. Hall obliged to beg pardon. The words thus defiantly spoken did not touch the Bishops alone. The notion that Parliament was the soul of the body politic, had been welcomed by the Lords. The King was no longer to reign supreme, summoning his estates, as Edward I. had summoned them, to gather round his throne. He was to be no more than a first estate, called on to join with the others, but not called on to do more. To such a pass had Charles brought himself by his resolution to walk alone. The time was not far off when even so much participation would be denied him. On the 21st the feeling of the Peers was even more strongly manifested. Bishop Hall had recently attracted attention to himself by publishing, at Laud's instigation, a work entitled 'Episcopacy by Divine Right,' in which he had argued that the primitive character of Episcopacy stamped it with Divine autho1 Harl. MSS. 4,931, fol. 47. THE KING DISSATISFIED. VII. 1640. 319 rity. He now rashly spoke of Saye as one who СНАР. 'savoured of a Scottish Covenanter.' He was at once ordered to the bar. "If I have offended," he said, "I cry pardon." The words were received with. a shout of "No ifs," and Hall was forced to beg pardon in positive terms. In the meanwhile, the Lower House was busy with its grievances. Preparations were made to petition the King on the breach of privilege in 1629, and to draw up a statement of the case against the Crown on ship money and the impositions. the On this, both Houses were summoned to Whitehall. In the King's presence, Finch explained the absolute necessity of a fleet, and declared that King' was not wedded to this particular way' of supporting it, and that if the Houses would find the money in some other manner, he would readily give his consent to the change. Then, after holding up the example of the fresh Parliament as worthy of imitation, Finch turned to the Lords. His Majesty, he said, did not doubt that, if the House of Commons should fail in their duty,' the Lords would concur with him to preserve himself and the nation. April 21. The Lower busy with House grievances. Finch explains that the King will accept any other porting a way of sup navy. April 22 Subsidies The appeal to the Lords was followed by an appeal to a body upon which the Commons looked voted in with no slight jealousy. On the 22nd, at Laud's tion. 1 Professor Masson is rather hard upon Hall all through this affair (Life of Milton, ii. 124). It should be remembered that the book was intended not as a private venture of Hall's, but as a manifesto of the English Church. It was therefore perfectly reasonable that Laud, being invited to comment, should do as he was asked. After all, the comments were merely those which would suggest themselves to a mind rather more resolute and thorough than that of Hall, and Hall did himself no discredit by accepting them. There is nothing in them in the slightest degree discordant with Hall's own system, which may be seen briefly in a paper of propositions sent by him to Laud (Laud's Works, iv. 310). Convoca |