Page images
PDF
EPUB

tution, and to revive the dying laws of their A.D. 1640. country. It is as certain that the composure on which Lord Clarendon expatiates, was a silent, gloomy submission to the arbitrary power of the court, a power which few individuals could venture to withstand. The king had no better success in his war Meeting of

parliament. against the Scotch than he had in those against France and Spain. He found it necessary to raise another army; he was in the greatest distress for money, and the revenue of the crown was antici.

in a private house till the “where did he stand," said the parliament met in November earl, “when he heard you drink 1640.25_ Rushworth.

the toast ?" they replied, at the At a tavern in Chancery- door going out of the room. lane, some young gentlemen “Tush,” said he, “ the drawer of Lincoln's Inn were drinking was mistaken; you drank to the a toast, which a drawer who confusion of the archbishop's attended them informed the foes, and he lieard only the first archbishop was to his confu- part of the words." This hinted sion; whereupon his grace pro- to the gentlemen a proper excured a warrant to a messenger cuse, which they did not think to bring them before the coun- of before. Lord Dorset, howcil. A little before the time of ever, advised them to carry their appearance, they applied themselves with all humility themselves to the Earl of Dor- and respect when they were set to stand their friend; and called in before the king and acknowledged their unadvised- council. They followed his adness in drinking a rash toast. vice, and by this means, and The earl asked who was the the favour of Lord Dorset and witness against them; they others, received only a reproof, answered, one of the drawers: and so were dismissed.

some

A.D. 1640. pated. These exigences at last obliged him to

call a new parliament; though “ those meetings,"
Lord Clarendon says, “ had been of late attended
with some disorders, the effect of mutinous
spirits.”* The parliament met April 13, 1640, in
a disposition, and with a resolution, to set forth
and redress the numerous public grievances that
existed both in church and state. Petitions t
were presented from several counties by the
knights of shires, complaining of ship-money,
projects, monopolies, the star-chamber, high com-
mission courts, and other oppressions. Not one
of the members offered to deny or justify these
things. The sense of the house concurred with
the petitioners. The members seemed deter-
mined to make a thorough inquiry into the na-
tional evils, with regard to the liberty and pro-
perty of the subject, the privileges of parliament,

and innovations in matters of religion. The doctrines of bishops, I at the very beginning of this reign, the clergy.

* These were Mr. Hollis, Sir Lord Capel, was the first who John Elliot, Mr. Selden, Sir presented a petition, which Edward Coke, and some of the was from the county of Hertmost eminent lawyers of the ford; and Mr. Grimston opened kingdom, who had exerted the debates upon the petitions. themselves in defence of the - Rushworth. liberties of the subject.

Mr. Locke. † Arthur Capel, afterwards.

denied that they held their jurisdiction from the A.D. 1640. king, declaring that they held it from God alone; whilst, at the same time, the divine right of monarchy, the king's absolute power and independence of his parliament, were the avowed and favourite doctrines of many of the dignified clergy, not only at court and in the country, but at the universities, where the venom was likely to be yet more fatal by poisoning the minds of the youth committed to their care. Mr. Pym brought before the house at this time a paper, containing many scandalous assertions made by Dr. Beale, master of St. John's in Cambridge, in his sermon preached at St. Mary's, March 27, 1635, viz.

1st. That the king might constitute laws, when, where, and against whom he pleased.

2dly. That parliaments serve kings as men do apes, a bit and a blow; give him a subsidy, and take away two or three of his prerogatives.

3dly. That ministers silenced for not reading the book of recreation, and the king's declaration, are advanced, and these calves are worshipped even from Dan to Beersheba.

4thly. That tonnage and poundage are the king's as absolutely as his crown, defend he the

A.D. 1640. seas or not; so are also our goods, ourselves, our

wives and children, and he may call for his own when he will.

5thly. That the king can of himself make laws to bind the conscience.

Doctrines like these had before been publicly avowed by Sibthorpe, Manwaring, and others. Manwaring, in particular, in a sermon preached before the king soon after his coming to the crown, and which was afterwards published, maintained, “ That the king's royal will and pleasure in imposing laws and taxes, without the consent of parliament, did oblige the subject's conscience upon pain of eternal damnation; and that the authority of parliament was not necessary for raising aids and subsidies.” Lord Clarendon mentions, in a very slight and cursory manner, these doctrines, and the clamours occasioned by them. He says, “The indiscretion and folly of one sermon at Whitehall was more bruited abroad, and commented upon, than the wisdom, sobriety, and devotion of an hundred;" which he imputes, as he does all the distraction of those times, to the perverseness of the people, “ who wanted a sense, acknowledgment, and value of their own happiness.” The true reason, however, why these doctrines were so generally exclaimed against, was A.D. 1640. because they were patronised by the court, which punished* those who opposed them, and rewardedt such as maintained them. Add to this, that they co-operated with the many courts of oppression in supporting an absolute power, confirmed the king in his arbitrary maxims, and probably had suggested many of them to him. To these doctrines, therefore, and the authors of them, if we

* Archbishop Abbot refused accusation sent up by the to license a sermon of Dr. house of commons to the Sibthorpe's, intitled Apostolical house of lords, in the parliaObedience, preached before ment of 1628, received judgthe judges at Northampton; ment, that for his offence he in which he had asserted the should he suspended for the king's power of raising money term of three years from the by his own authority. The exercise of his function, and king pressed the archbishop, should be disabled from havby several messages, to license ing thereafter any ecclesiasthe sermon, and sent him word, tical dignity: and the lords " that if he did not despatch it, resolved to address the king he would take another course to call in the said sermon by with him.” The archbishop proclamation. A proclamation persisting in his refusal, was was published, but the doctor sequestered from his office. immediately after received a A commission was granted to pardon from the king, was made Bishop Laud, and four other rector of Stamford Rivers in bishops, to execute the archi- Essex, which he had a dispenepiscopal jurisdiction, and the sation to hold with the rectory archbishop died during the se- of St. Giles's in the Fields; and questration.

was soon after made bishop # Dr. Manwaring, upon an of St. David's.

« PreviousContinue »