« PreviousContinue »
be of the revenues of individual delinquents in the University, every regard was to be paid to the property of the University as such, and not an atom of it should be alienated. By this time, however, it was felt that the malignancy of the University must be dealt with more expressly. Accordingly, on the 22nd of January there was passed "an Ordinance for regulating the University of Cambridge and for removing of scandalous Ministers in the several Associate Counties." By this ordinance it was provided that, “ whereas many com
plaints are made by the well-affected inhabitants of the " associated counties of Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hertford,
Canıbridge, Huntingdon, and Lincoln, that the service of “the Parliament is retarded, the enemy strengthened, the "people's souls starved, and their minds diverted from any “care of God's cause, by their idle, ill-affected and scandalous
clergy of the University of Cambridge and the Associated " Counties," and whereas "many that would give evidence against such scandalous ministers are not able to travel to
London,” therefore the Earl of Manchester should be commissioned to take the necessary steps in the University and the Counties themselves. He was to appoint Committees who were to have “power to call before them all Provosts, “ Masters, and Fellows of Colleges, all students and members “of the University, and all ministers in any county of the
Association, and all schoolmasters ;” and, after due inquiry by these Committees, he was to have power "to eject such " as he shall judge unfit from their places, and to sequester “their estates, means and revenues, and to place other fitting "persons in their room, such as shall be approved of by the " Assembly of Divines.” A very important ordinance, as we shall see in due time.1
The reader need hardly be reminded by what authority all these acts and changes in the system of England were decreed and carried into effect. Since the beginning of the war the government of England, except where the King's
1 Commons Journals, June 10, 1613, and Jan. 20, 1643-4; Lords Journals,
Jar. 6 and Jan. 22, 1643-4 ; and Neal,
troops were in possession, had been in the two Houses of Parliament sitting at Westminster; but since July 1643 it may be said rather to have been in these two Houses of Parliament with the Assembly of Divines. What the reader requires, however, to be reminded of is the smallness mumerically of this governing body. The House of Lords, in particular, though still retaining all its noininal dignity and keeping up all its stately forms, was a mere shred of its former self. About 29 or 30 persons, out of the total Peerage of England, as we reckoned (Vol. II. pp. 430-31), had avowed themselves Parliamentarians; so that, had all these been present, the House of Lords would have been but a very small gathering. But, as a certain number even of these were always absent on military duty or on other occasions, it was seldom that more than 14 or 15 Peers were present in the House around Lord Grey of Wark on the woolsack as elected Speaker. Sometimes, when the business was merely formal, the number sank to 4 or 5; and I do not think the Lords Journals register, during the whole time with which we are now concerned, a larger attendance than 22. That was the number present on the 22nd of January, 1643-4, when the ordinance for visiting Cambridge University was passed. In the Commons, of course, the attendance was much larger. When a “whip” was necessary, between 200 and 300 could be got together. Thus on the 25th of September, 1643, which was the day of inaugurating the Covenant, 220 were present; and on the above-mentioned 22nd of January, 1613-4-an important day for various reasons—as many as 280 made their appearance, while it was calculated that 100 were absent in the Parliamentary service. Usually, however, the attendance was much less numerous. On a vote taken Nov. 26, 1643, the division showed 59 against 58, or 117 present; and this appears to be rather above the mark of the attendance in general. ---On the whole, one may say that the business of the nation in the interest of Parliament was carried on
1 As the Lords Journals give the ject is obtainable from them. names of the Peers present each day, very accurato information on this sub
2 Parl. Hist. 111. 199.
habitually during those important months by some 12 or 15 Parliamentarian Peers, and some 100. Commoners, keeping up the forms of the two Houses, and having for their assessors, and in part for their spurs and tutors, the 60 or 80 Puritan Divines who sat close at hand in the Jerusalem Chamber.
Was all this to last ? Whether it was to last or not depended not a little on the conduct of the Parliament itself, but greatly more on the conduct of the generals and armies that held
up its banners in various parts of England. And how, since our last glimpses of the state of the war in the dark month of Hampden's death and the month following that (June and July 1643), had the war been going on? Much as before. What do we see ? A siege here and a siege there, a skirmish here and a skirmish there, ending sometimes for the Parliament, but as often for the King; amid all these sieges and skirmishes no battle of any magnitude, save the first Battle of Newbery (Sept. 20, 1613), where Lord Falkland, weary of his life, was slain, and also the Royalist Earls of Carnarvon and Sunderland, but otherwise the damage to the King was inconsiderable ; Essex still heavy and solemn, an excellent man, but a woful commander-inchief; little Sir William Waller still the favourite and set up against Essex, but confidence in him somewhat shaken by his recent defeats; the Fairfaxes in the north, and others in other parts, doing at best but respectably ; Cromwell, it is true, a marked man and always successful wherever he appeared, but appearing yet only as Colonel Cromwell ! “For the present the Parliament side is running down the brae,” wrote the sagacious Baillie, Sept. 22, 1643; and again, more pithily, Dec. 7, “ They may tig-tag on this way this twelvemonth.” The only remedy, Baillie thought—the only thing that would change the sluggish “ tig-tagging” of Essex and the English into something like what a war should be-was the expected coming-in of the Scots. For this event the English Parliamentarians also longed vehemently. “All things are expected from God and the Scots” is Baillie's description of the feeling in London in the
winter of 1643-4. For, though the bringing in of a Scottish force auxiliary to the English army had been arranged for in the autumn-though it was for that end that the English Parliament had sent Commissioners to Edinburgh, had accepted Henderson's “Solemn League and Covenant,” and had admitted Scottish Commissioners into the Westminster Assembly-yet the completing of the negotiations, and the getting together and equipping of the Scottish army for its southward march, had been a work of time. About Christmas 1643 it was understood that the Scots were in readiness to march; but the precise time when they might be expected to cross the border was yet in anxious conjecture.?
It was an unusually severe winter, cold and snowy. The Londoners, in especial, deprived of their coal from Newcastle, felt it severely. Baillie particularly mentions the comfortable hangings of the Jerusalem Chamber, and the good fire kept burning in it, as “ some dainties in London ” at that date, and duly appreciated by the members of the Assembly. Among the printed broad-sheets of the time that were hawked about London, I have seen one entitled “ Artificial Fire; or, Coal for Rich and Poor: this being the offer of an excellent new Invention.” The invention consists of a proposal to the Londoners of a cheap substitute for coal, devised by a “Mr. Richard Gesling, Ingineer, late deceased." Mr. Gesling's idea was that, if you take brickdust, mortar, sawdust, or the like, and make up pasteballs thereof mingled with the dust of sea-coal or Scotch coal, and with stable-litter, you will have a fuel much more economical than coal itself. But, though this is the practical proposal of the fly-sheet, its main interest lies in its lamentation over the lack of the normal fuel. “ Some fine"nosed city dames," it says, "used to tell their husbands, 'O “ husband ! we shall never be well, we nor our children, whilst
we live in the smell of this city's sea-coal smoke! Pray, a "country-house for our health, that we may get out of this “sea-coal smell !' But how many of these fine-nosed 1 Baillie, II. 83, 99, 104-5, and 114-15.
2 Ibid. II. 106.
“ dames now cry, 'Would to God we had sea-coal ! Oh! the want of fire undoes us ! O the sweet sea-coal fires we used to have! how we want them now! no fire to your sea-coal!' .... This for the rich: a word for “the poor! The great want of fuel for fire makes many
a poor creature cast about how to pass over this cold “winter to come; but, finding small redress for so cruel an
enemy as the cold makes, soine turn thieves that never “stole before-steal posts, seats, benches from doors, rails, nay, the very stocks that should punish them; and all to "keep the cold winter away." 1 If on no other account than the prospect of a re-opening of the coal-traffic between Newcastle and London, what joy among the Londoners when the news came that, on Friday the 19th of January, 1643-4, the expected Scottish army had entered England by Berwick! They had entered it, toiling through deep snow, 21,500 strong, and were already-God be praised !--spreading themselves over the winter-white fields of the very region where the coal lay black underground. At their head who but old Field-marshal Leslie, now Earl of Leven, Scottish commander-in-chief for the third time, and tolerably well acquainted already with the North of England ? Second in command to him, as Lieutenant-general of the Foot, was William Baillie, of Letham, in this post for the second time, and the Major-general, with command of the horse, was David Leslie, a third Gustavus-Adolphus man, and, though a namesake of the commander-in-chief, only distantly related to him. The Marquis of Argyle accompanied the invaders, nominally as Colonel of a troop of horse ; and among the other colonels of foot or horse were the Earls of Cassilis, Lindsay, Loudoun, Buccleugh, Dunfermline, Lothian, Marischal, Eglinton, and Dalhousie. The expenses of the army, averaging 1,0001. per diem (6d. a day for each common foot-soldier, 8d. for a horse-soldier, and so on upwards) were, by agreement, to be charged to England.2
1 Folio sheet dated 16 14 (i.e. winter of 1643-4), in British Museum Library: Press-mark, 669, f. ii.
9 Rushw. V. 604-7 ; Parl. Hist. III. 200, 201; Baillie, II. (100 and 137.