CHAP. VII.

King Charles I. 1640.

The Character of the Long Parliament. Their Arguments against the late Convocation and Canons. The Impeachment of Dr. WILLIAM LAUD, Archbishop of Canterbury. Votes of the House of Commons against the Promoters of the late Innovations.

WE are now entering upon the proceedings of the long parliament, which continued sitting with some little intermission for above eighteen years, and occasioned such prodigious revolutions in church and state, as were the surprise and wonder of all Europe. The house of commons have been severely censured for the ill success of their endeavors to recover and secure the constitution of their country but the attempt was glorious, though a train of unforeseen accidents rendered it fatal in the event. The members consisted chiefly of country gentlemen, who had no attachment to the court; for, as Whitlock observes, though the court labored to bring in their friends, yet 'those who had most favor with them, had least in the 'country; and it was not a little strange to see what a spirit of opposition to the court proceedings was in the hearts and actions of most of the people, so that very few of that 'party had the favor of being chosen members of this parliament." Mr. Eachard insinuates some unfair methods of election, which might be true on both sides; but both he and lord Clarendon admit, that there were many great and worthy patriots in the house, and as eminent as any age had ever produced; men of gravity, of wisdom, and of great and plentiful fortunes, who would have been satisfied with some few amendments in church and state.

Before the opening of the session the principal members consulted measures for securing the frequency of parliaments; for redressing of grievances in church and state; and for bri, ging the king's arbitrary ministers to justice; to accomplish which it was thought necessary to set some Memorials, p. 35.

VOL. II.

47

bounds to the prerogative, and to lessen the power of the bishops; but it never entered into their thoughts to overturn the civil or ecclesiastical constitution, as will appear from the concurrent testimony of the most unexceptionable historians.

"As to their religion (says the noble historian,*) they were all members of the established church, and almost 'to a man for episcopal government. Though they were 'undevoted enough to the court, they had all imaginable 'duty for the king, and affection for the government estab'lished by law, or ancient custom; and without doubt the 'majority of that body were persons of gravity and wis'dom, who being possessed of great and plentiful fortunes, had no mind to break the peace of the kingdom, or to 'make any considerable alterations in the government of the church or state." Dr. Lewis du Moulin, who lived through these times, says, "that both lords and commons 'were most, if not all, peaceable, orthodox church of Eng'land men, all conforming to the rites and ceremonies of 'episcopacy, but greatly averse to popery and tyranny, and 'to the corrupt part of the church that inclined towards Rome." This is further evident from their order of Nov. 20, 1640, that none should sit in their house but such as would receive the communion according to the usage of the church of England. The commons, in their grand remonstrance of Dec. 1, 1641, declared to the world, "that it was far from their purpose to let loose the golden reins 'of discipline and government in the church, to leave private persons, or particular congregations, to take up what 'form of divine service they pleased; for we hold it requisite (say they) that there should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that order which the law enjoins, according to the word of God." The noble historian adds further, "that even after the battle of Edgehill the design against the church was not grown popular in the house; that in the years 1642 and 1643, the lords and commons were in perfect conformity to the church of England, and so was their army, the general and officers both by sea and land being neither presbyterians,

Clarendon, vol. i. p. 181, &e.

independents, anabaptists, nor conventiclers; and that when they cast their eyes upon Scotland, there were in truth very few in the two houses who desired the extir'pation of episcopacy. Nay, his lordship is of opinion, that the nation in general was less inclined to the puritans than to the papists; at least, that they were for the establishment, for when the king went to Scotland, [1641] the common-prayer was much reverenced throughout the kingdom, and was a general object of veneration with the people. -There was a full submission and love to "the established government of the church and state, es'pecially to that part of the church which concerned the liturgy and book of common-prayer;" which, though it be bardly credible, as will appear hereafter by the numbers of petitions from several counties against the hierarchy, yet may serve to silence those of his lordship's admirers, who through ignorance and ill-will have represented the long parliament, and the body of the puritans at their first sitting down, as in a plot against the whole ecclesiastical establishment.

If we may believe his lordship's character of the leading members of both houses, even of those who were most active in the war against the king, we shall find even they were true churchmen according to law; and that they had no designs against episcopacy, nor any inclinations to presbytery or the separation.

The earl of ESSEX was captain-general and commander in chief of the parliament army, and so great was his reputation, that his very name commanded thousands into their /service. It had been impossible for the parliament to have raised an army, in lord Clarendon's opinion, if the earl of Essex had not consented to be their general; and yet this "nobleman," says he,* "was not indevoted to the function of bishops, but was as much devoted as any man to the book of common-prayer, and obliged all his servants to be 'present with him at it; his household chaplain being always a conformable man, and a good scholar."

The earl of BEDFORD was general of the horse under the earl of Essex, but "he had no desire that there should be any alteration in the government of the church; he had

* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 182, 185, 189, 211, 212, 233, 507; and vol. ii. p. 211, 212, 214, 462, 597, &c.

'always lived towards my lord of Canterbury himself, with all respect and reverence; he frequently visited and dined with him, subscribed liberally to the repairing of St. Paul's, and seconded all pious undertakings."

Lord Kimbolton, afterwards earl of Manchester, was a man of great generosity and good breeding; and no man was more in the confidence of the discontented party, or more trusted; he was commander of part of the parliament forces, and rather complied with the changes of the times than otherwise; he had a considerable share in the restoration of king Charles the second, and was in high favor with him till his death.

The earl of Warwick was admiral of the parliament fleet; he was the person who seized on the king's ships, and employed them against him during the whole course of the war; he was looked upon as the greatest patron of the puritans, and yet this nobleman (says lord Clarendon) never discovered any aversion to episcopacy, but much professed the contrary.

In truth, (says the noble historian) when the bill was brought into the house to deprive the bishops of their votes in parliament, there were only at that time taken notice of in the house of peers, the lords SAY and BROOK, as positive enemies to the whole fabric of the church, and to desire a dissolution of the government.

Amongst the leading members in the house of commons, we may reckon William Lenthall, Esq. their speaker, who was of no ill reputation for his affection to the government both of church and state, (says his lordship,) and declared on his death-bed after the restoration, that he had always esteemed episcopal government to be the best government of the church, and accordingly died a dutiful son of the church of England.

Mr. PYм had the leading influence in the house of commons, and was in truth the most popular man, and most able to do hurt of any who lived in his time; and yet, lord Clarendon says, though he was an enemy to the arminians, he professed to be very entirely for the doctrine and discipline of the church of England, and was never thought to be For violent measures, till the king came to the house of commons, and attempted to seize him amongst the five members,

Denzil Hollis, Esq. after the restoration promoted to the dignity of a baron, was at the head of all the parliament's councils till the year 1647. He had an indignation (says lord Clarendon) against the independents, nor was he affected to the presbyterians, any, otherwise than as they constituted a party to oppose the others, but was well pleased with the government of the church.

Sir H. Vane the elder, did the king's affairs an unspeakable prejudice, and yet in his judgment he liked the government both of church and state; nay, he not only appeared highly conformable himself, but exceeding sharp against those that were not.

Sir John Hotham was the gentleman who shut the gates of Hull against the king; and in a sally that he made upon the king's forces shed the first blood that was spilt in the civil war, and was the first his majesty proclaimed a traitor; and yet his lordship declares, he was very well af fected to the government.

His lordship is a little more dubious about the famous Mr. Hampden, but says, that most people believed his dislike was rather to some churchmen, than to the ecclesiastical government of the church.

I might mention Mr. Whitlock, Selden, Langhorne, and others, who are represented without the least inclination to presbytery; but it is sufficient to observe from his lordship, that all the earl of Essex's party in both houses were men of such principles, that they desired no alteration in the court or government, but only of the persons that acted in it; nay, the chief.officers of his army were so zealous for the liturgy, that they would not hear a man as a minister that had not episcopal ordination.

Nathaniel Fiennes, Esq. Sir H. Vane, jun. and shortly after Mr. Hampden, were believed to be for root and branch; yet (says his lordship) Mr. Pym was not of that mind, nor Mr. Hollis, nor any of the northern men, nor any of those lawyers who drove on most furiously with them; all of whom were well pleased with the government of the church; for though it was in the hearts of some few to remove foundations, they had not the courage and confidence to communicate it.

This was the present temper and constitution of both