1642.] ENCROACHMENTS ON REGAL PREROGATIVE. 421

sented to all that was demanded of him, except parting with the militia, and even in this he had yielded in a great measure. At the same time he had given abundant proof that by force or stratagem he would endeavour to recover all he had resigned, and that the only security of the parliament lay in his weakness; but that he had not the power now, unless aided by the ill conduct of his opponents, to make a successful attempt, late events had shown. Despotism was what he aimed at, that is plain; but did the Pyms and Hampdens aim at nothing beyond the maintenance of constitutional liberty? This will best appear by an examination of their acts during the last

year.

"After every allowance has been made," says Hallam*, "he must bring very heated passions to the records of those times, who does not perceive in the conduct of the house of commons a series of glaring violations, not only of positive and constitutional, but of those higher principles which are paramount to all immediate policy." He then collects the following instances. The ordinance for disarming recusants, and that authorizing the earl of Leicester to raise men for the defence of Ireland,-encroachments on the prerogative; Pym's menace to the peers, that if they did not pass the bills sent to them by the commons, these last, "with such of the lords as are more sensible of the safety of the kingdom," shall represent the same to the kingt, and their accusation of the duke of Richmond, above related, encroachments on the house of peers; their enormous extension of privilege, any one who said a word against them being dragged off to prison ‡, as also were * Constitutional History, ii. 192.

†This resolution, the germ of that of the house of lords being useless, was moved by Pym on Dec. 3, 1641, "before the argument from necessity could be pretended." On Mr. Godolphin's objecting that if they went to the king with the lesser part of the lords, the greater part of these might go to him with the lesser part of them, he was ordered to withdraw, and his offence was to be taken into consideration the following Tuesday.-Hallam.

One Sandford, a royalist tailor, being charged with saying, "that the earl of Essex was a traitor; that all the parliament were traitors; that the earl of

those charged with introducing ceremonies in the church, (a thing surely not belonging to them) "the outrageous attempts to intimidate the minority of their own body by committing them to the Tower for such language used in debate as would not have excited any observation in ordinary times*." Then again, as the same writer observes, "their despotic violation of the rights of the people, in imprisoning those who presented or prepared respectful petitions in behalf of the established constitution, while they encouraged those of a tumultuous multitude at their bar in favour of innovation, their usurpation at once of the judicial and legislative powers in all that related to the church, particularly by their committee for scandalous ministers, under which denomination, adding reproach to injury, they subjected all who did not reach the puritan standard of perfection to contumely and vexation, and ultimately to expulsion from their lawful property." He then notices the impeachment of the twelve bishops, whose protest, though "not perhaps entirely well expressed, is abundantly justifiable in its argument by the plainest principles of law." In fine, he says, that "these great abuses of power becoming daily more frequent as they became less excusable, would make a sober man hesitate to support them in a civil war, wherein their success must not only consummate the destruction of the crown, the church, and the peerage, but expose all who had dissented from their proceedings, as it ultimately happened, to an oppres

Warwick was a traitor, and he wished his heart in his boots; and that he cursed the parliament, and wished Mr. Pym (calling him King Pym) and sir John Hotham both hanged;"-for this the lords (the puppets of the commons) sentenced him to be kept at work in Bridewell for his life, besides some minor inflictions. Pym was called by the royalists King Pym on account of his portly person and his absolute power over his party.

* See the case of Mr. Palmer, (above p. 407.) In the debate on the late declaration, in which they most falsely charged the king with a design to change his religion, sir Ralph Hopton, for saying, "that they seemed to ground an opinion of the king's apostasy upon a less evidence than would serve to hang a fellow for stealing a horse," was committed to the Tower. Clarendon, ii. 282. See also the case of Trelawny, stated by him, in the following page.

1642.]

THE MILITIA.

423

sion, less severe perhaps, but far more sweeping, than that which had rendered the star-chamber odious."

The further reflections of this judicious writer, almost the only one who evinces impartiality on this subject, and does not act the part of advocate to one side or the other, are most deserving of consideration. He thinks as we do, that the parliament, relying on the justice of their cause and the favour of the people, should have accepted the offer of the king respecting the militia. We will add, that we cannot divest our mind of a suspicion, that it was the secret design of Pym, Hampden, and some others to convert the monarchy into a republic, of which they hoped to be themselves the chiefs; for they were no religious zealots; their views were chiefly political.

To understand the question of the militia, it is necessary to recollect, that at this time there was no standing army in England. After the feudal army had gone out of use, the kings used to raise troops for their foreign wars by contracts with influential noblemen, and by giving very large pay. At the same time the old Saxon Fyrd continued under another form, and the men in each shire were required to keep arms and be ready to suppress insurrection and repel invasion. It was expressly provided by a statute of Edward I. that the militia should not be required to leave their own county except in these cases; but during the period of the Tudor despotism, this was little heeded; and a statute of Philip and Mary empowered the crown to levy men for service in war, and men were in consequence frequently pressed to serve in Ireland and elsewhere. When it was necessary to call out the forces of the counties, commissions of array were issued to particular persons for this purpose; but the sheriff was the person who usually disposed of the military force of his county. In Mary's reign a new officer named the lordlieutenant was appointed, usually a peer or influential commoner in the county, whose office was altogether military. It was his office to muster and train, when neces

sary, the able-bodied men of the county, and he was the commander of the militia, or trained-bands as they were named. Each county had its magazine of arms and ammunition, to be issued to the trained-bands when called into service.

As the institution of lords-lieutenant was a Tudor measure, it is quite certain that they had been always named by the crown; yet it was the right of appointing to this office that the commons now demanded; and sooner than yield to the king on this point, they plunged the nation into a civil war. "No one," says Hallam again," can pretend that this was not an encroachment on his prerogative. It can only find a justification in the precarious condition, as the commons asserted it to be, of those liberties they had so recently obtained, in their just persuasion of the king's insincerity, and in the demonstrations he had already made of an intention to win back his authority at the sword's point. But it is equitable on the other hand to observe, that the commons had by no means greater reason to distrust the faith of Charles than he had to anticipate fresh assaults from them on the power he had inherited, on the form of religion which alone he thought lawful, on the counsellors who had served him most faithfully, and on the nearest of his domestic ties. If the right of self-defence could be urged by parliament for this demand of the militia, must we not admit that a similar plea was equally valid for the king's refusal? However arbitrary and violent the previous government of Charles may have been, however disputable his sincerity at present, it is vain to deny that he had made the most valuable concessions, and such as had cost him very dear. It was not unreasonable for the king to pause at the critical moment which was to make all future denial nugatory, and inquire whether the prevailing majority designed to leave him what they had not taken away."

CHAPTER VII.

CHARLES I. (CONTINUED).

1642-1644.

Gates of Hull shut against Charles.-Manifestoes on both sides.-Raising of money and troops.-Royal standard raised at Nottingham.-Battle of Edgehill.-Affair at Brentford.-Treaty at Oxford.-Arrival of the queen.-Waller's plot.-Battles of Lansdown and Roundway-down.-Death and character of Hampden.-Surrender of Bristol.-Siege of Gloucester.-Battle of Newbury.-Ill conduct of the king.-Cessation with the Irish rebels.-Death and character of Pym.-Oxford parliament.-Progress of the war.-Battle of Cropredy-bridge.-Battle of Marston-moor.

THE nobility and gentry of York and the adjoining counties now resorted to the king with ardent expressions of sympathy and attachment. He had in fact succeeded in putting the parliament in the wrong, and men were become indignant at beholding the continued efforts (the secret motives of which they were ignorant of) for stripping the sovereign of all his powers and prerogatives. Many of the peers now came to him from London, and in the paper war of declarations and so forth carried on between him and the parliament, his manifestoes, prepared by Hyde, were as superior to theirs in argument as in eloquence. His tone now became more elevated; there was an end of concession, he insisted on his rights; and in the opinion of many, he required nothing to which his claims were not as well founded as any private man's right to his lands and tenements.

The pernicious influence of the queen, though absent, still operated. In his uxoriousness, Charles thought himself bound, regardless of consequences, to fulfil any unwary promise which she had drawn from him, and he now, in compliance with her will, and in opposition to the opinion of his best advisers, required the earls of Essex and Hol