The Short 13, 1640; subsidies of religion the Scots were concealing a treasonable conspiracy with a foreign power. In the belief that such a revelation would prompt English loyalty to support him against Scottish treason, he finally accepted Strafford's advice, and in March elections were held, after the lapse of so many years, for a new parliament. 7. By the calling of the Short Parliament, which met on the met April 13th of April, 1640, Charles confessed the impotency of the conciliar system in the face of a great emergency, and that confession was emphasized when Lord Keeper Finch appealed to the houses for an instant grant to pay the army which had been raised to crush rebellion in the north. Finch's proposal was that, after a bill should be passed granting tonnage and poundage from the king's accession, and another granting extraordinary subsidies, parliament should address itself to the demanded; consideration of grievances; and in the hope of exciting the zeal of his auditors, the lord keeper then read the intercepted intercepted letter letter 1 which was supposed to prove the treason of the Scots, for whose coercion Strafford had already obtained four subsidies from the Irish commons. To this appeal for aid to destroy the allies who were fighting the battle of English freedom across the border, the house, now led by Pym and Hampden, ignored by responded by ignoring the intercepted letter, and by resolving which took on the 23d to reverse Finch's proposal by taking up first the question of question of grievances: "Till the liberties of the house and grievances: kingdom were cleared, they knew not whether they had any exhibited; the house, up first the and resented a suggestion from the thing to give or no." Before making a grant the house was determined that redress should be given for the breach of privilege which had arisen out of the prosecution of Eliot, Holles, and Valentine, and for the unconstitutional exaction of ship-money and the impositions. At this point Charles lords that appealed to the lords, who declared by a great majority that in their judgment "supply should have precedency, and be resolved upon before any other matter whatsoever," a conclu "supply should have precedency;" 1 For a full statement, see Lingard, vol. vii. p. 440, and note 3. 2 Journals of the Commons of Ire land, vol. i. p. 141. Upon his return to England Strafford left orders for the levy of eight thousand Irish troops. Fadera, vol. xx. p. 359; Strafford Papers, pp. 390-404. 5 8 Harl. MSS., 3, 931, fol. 47 b. 4 Parl. or Const. Hist., vol. viii. p. 441. 5 Sixty-one out of a house of eightysix voted for the king. State Papers, Dom., ccccli. 39. money-bills after refus dissolved sion which in conference was expressed to the commons, who exclusive promptly resented the suggestion of the lords as a high breach right of the of their exclusive privilege to originate money-bills. The lords, originate however, maintained their position by a diminished majority,1 admitted; while the king demanded an immediate grant of twelve subsidies, in exchange for which he proposed to give up ship-money. As soon as it was known that the houses would not pay unconditionally so great a sum for the redress of a grievance which should never have existed,2 parliament was abruptly dissolved parliament, on May 5, after a session of three weeks, during which time ing to do it sternly expressed by its refusal to do anything the breadth anything, and depth of the national displeasure. "So great a defection May 5; in the kingdom," wrote Northumberland, "hath not been known in the memory of man." The failure of parliament to grant supplies released the king, in Strafford's judgment, "from all rule of government," and left him free to return to the "extraordinary means by which he had filled the exchequer during the last eleven years. Thus it was that the collection of ship-money was quickened, a new imposition called "coat "coat and and conduct money" imposed, fresh monopolies created, and conduct, forced loans demanded of the city of London, whose aldermen imposed; were imprisoned for their refusal to give. And in order to convocation secure a grant from the clergy, convocation was unconstitu- after distionally continued after the dissolution of parliament 5 under a commission authorizing it to sit "during pleasure," and to alter and amend the laws of the church, by virtue of which seventeen "constitutions and canons "7 were adopted, pro- a new set claiming anew the divine right of kings, inculcating passive adopted; obedience, imposing a new oath known as the Etcetera Oath, money continued solution; of canons war with the Scots renewed; to prevent innovations in doctrine and government, and subjecting all separatists to the same penalties as catholic recuWith the inadequate means thus provided Strafford urged upon Charles war against the Scots, which he undertook to conduct with the aid of an army from Ireland. In anticipation of the blow thus aimed against them, the covenanters, encouraged by the refusal of the English parliament to grant supplies, again assumed the aggressive. On the 20th of August they crossed the border, and after occupying Newcastle, offered proposals of peace upon the basis of a redress of grievances. As the king dared not hazard a battle with the undisciplined troops under Strafford's command, he sought a truce, which he was forced to buy with the heavy concessions embodied in the treaty of Ripon. Without an effective military force, with an empty treasury to which the city of London refused to lend, with Laud rabbled at Lambeth, and the sittings of the high commission broken up by a mob at St. Paul's, Charles was compelled to accept the inevitable and, after a vain appeal to a great council of peers 2 which met at York in September, he reluctantly consented, as a last resort, September. to put himself in the hands of the estates at Westminster. Charles forced to buy a truce; great council of peers held at York in The death grapple between the conciliar and parliamentary systems: the Long Parliament met, November 3, 1640; 8. The time had now come for the death grapple between the conciliar system, to which the genius of Strafford had given a fresh inspiration, and the parliamentary system, destined to enter upon a new career under the leadership of Pym, who was the first to put in practice the constitutional principle which has become the basis of the English constitution in its modern form, and which maintains not only that the supreme powers of the state are vested in parliament as against the crown, but that as between the houses themselves the ultimate sovereignty resides in the popular branch of the legislature. Fully conscious of the fact that these mighty issues were bound up in the impending crisis, Pym rode with Hampden through the counties upon the eve of the elections, in order to urge the constituencies to return men of the right temper to represent them in that famous assembly which met on the 3d of November, 1640, and which was destined to be known for all time as the Long Parliament. 1 Neal, Hist. Puritans, vol. ii. p. 302. seen for centuries. It held its last meeting October 28. of Pym; tion of the attained; The response to the joint appeal was such a manifestation of popular support as had not been seen since the days of Simon of Montfort, and the leadership of the great majority which thus gathered at St. Stephen's naturally passed to Pym, who leadership remained as almost the sole survivor of that patriot band which had been led in turn by Coke, Eliot, and Wentworth. If it be true that "Wentworth is the one English statesman of all time who may be said to have had no sense of law, . . John Pym, the leader of the commons from the first meeting of the new houses at Westminster, stands out for all aftertime as the embodiment of law." According to Pym's con- his concepception, the duty of the popular party in the house was to end to be hew away by purely constitutional means the abnormal powers which the conciliar system had taken on during the Tudor period, and which both James and Charles had augmented, in order to restore the parliamentary system to the position of legitimate influence which it had enjoyed in the days of the Lancastrian kings. The means finally employed for that end means consisted, first, of the removal and punishment of the great for its employed ministers by whom the conciliar system had been perverted; attainment. second, of the correction of the more recent abuses brought about by them; third, of such a diminution of the powers of the council as to render it incapable of serious harm for the future. Under these three heads may be grouped all of the more important acts of the Long Parliament. the death The leadership to which Pym was assigned by the popular A duel to party, and which put at his back not only the house of com- between mons but a Scottish army upon English soil, involved him at Pym and Strafford; once in a duel to the death with Strafford, who was supported by all the resources of the council system and by the army of the king. While the two gladiators thus equipped glared at each other for a moment across the arena, Strafford forced Pym's hand by advising Charles to seize the popular leaders upon a charge of treasonable relations with the Scots.2 Only Strafford a timely betrayal of the secret enabled Pym to parry the blow hurriedly by impeaching Strafford so hurriedly at the bar of the lords, on the 11th of November, that he was forced to promise that November; 1 Green, Hist. of the Eng. People, vol. iii. pp. 155, 192. 2 Rushworth, Strafford's Trial, p. 2; Laud's Works, vol. iii. p. 295. 3 Gardiner, Hist. Eng., vol. ix. p. 232. impeached on the 11th of formulate a provable charge of treason against him; 3 the house would send up the grounds of the accusation at a later day.1 The preliminary articles were carried to the lords on the 25th of November, the detailed charges on the 28th and 30th of the following January, and supplementary articles on the 8th of the following April. The real reason for this difficult to hesitation and delay grew out of the inability of the managers upon the part of the house to formulate a provable charge against Strafford, which clearly constituted treason under the terms of the statute of Edward III. According to Pym's theory the lord lieutenant was guilty of treason, because he was at the head of a conspiracy to overthrow, by force, if necessary, the fundamental laws of the realm, or in other words, the constitution of the country, and that theory was embodied in the first of the preliminary articles, which averred "that Thomas, earl of Strafford, hath traitorously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the realms of England and Ireland, and instead thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government against law, which he had declared by traitorous words, counsels, and actions, and by giving His Majesty advice by force of arms to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereto." The reason it was difficult to maintain that the acts alleged came within the terms of the statute was, as Hallam has pithily expressed it, because "the law of England is silent as to conspiracies against itself." That silent as to part of the charge which accused Strafford of levying money by his own authority and quartering troops on certain towns of Ireland, in order to compel them to pay, was supposed charged to make the closest approach to that kind of substantive. "levying treason denounced by the English statute as "levying war against the king," and also by two Irish acts, one of the reign of Edward III., and the other of the reign of Henry VI., the last of which provided that "whosoever shall cess men of war against His Majesty's dominions, shall be thought to make war against the King," and be punished as a traitor. In the trial which began March 22, 1641, and lasted until the 19th because "the law of England is conspira cies against itself;" with war against the king;" 1 Commons' Journals, vol. ii. p. 26; Clarendon, Hist. Rebellion, vol. i. p. 243. See also Lords' Journals, vol. iv. p. 88. 2 Ibid., p. 97. 8 D'Ewes' Diary, Harl. MSS., clxii. fol. 176, 182; Ibid., clxiii. fol. 318. 4 Hallam, Const. Hist., vol. ii. p. 106. 5 For a full statement, see Sir J. F. Stephen, Hist. of the Crim. Law, vol. i. pp. 360-364. |